R. Banumathi, J.

This Appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful Defendants in O.S.No.5 of 1987 on the file of Sub-Court, Vridhachalam. Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree of the Money Suit dated 10.04.1989, the Defendants have preferred this Appeal.

2. For convenience, parties would be referred to as they were arrayed in O.S.No.5 of 1987 on the file of Sub-Court, Vridhachalam.

3. The Plaintiff filed the Suit on Promissory Note. The Defendants are Father and Son. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants have borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- and executed the Suit Promissory Note on 11/09/1984 at Manmalai Village, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In spite of repeated demands, issuance of Legal Notice dated 07.04.1986, the Defendants have not repaid the amount. The Defendants have only sent the Reply dated 17.04.1986, containing false allegations to defraud the claim of the Plaintiff. Hence, the Suit.

4. Denying the execution of the Promissory Note, the Defendants have filed the Written Statement alleging that the Defendants have sold their lands to one Muruga Gounder. The Plaintiff has asked the Defendants to sell their lands to him. When the Defendants have refused to convey the property to the Plaintiff, aggrieved over the same, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit creating a false Promissory Note and that the Defendants are not liable to pay any amount.

5. On the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed three issues. The Plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1. Attestor was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. Onbehalf of the Defendants, First Defendant was examined as D.W.1. Ex.D.1 was marked. On the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.A.1 and the evidence adduced, learned Trial Judge found that the Plaintiff has proved the execution of the Promissory Note and advancing money of Rs.25,000/-. While appreciating the evidence, learned Trial Judge interalia compared signature of the First Defendant in Ex.A.1 with his signatures in the Deposition and signature of the Second Defendant in the Vakalat and found that the signatures tallied. Rejecting the defence of denial of execution, the Trial Court decreed the suit.

6. Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, the Defendants have preferred this Appeal. Assailing the findings of the Trial Court, learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Trial Court erred in believing the evidence of P.W.2, who is the Brother's son of the Plaintiff and his interested testimony. The conclusion of the Trial Court is also assailed on the ground that the Trial Court has erred in suo motu comparing the signatures of the Defendants. It is the further contention that such comparison of the disputed signatures ought to have been made only with the contemporaneous admitted signatures and not with the signatures in the Court.

7. Submitting that the Plaintiff has convincingly proved the execution of the Promissory Note by adducing evidence, learned counsel for the Respondent / Plaintiff has submitted that under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, Court has got ample powers to compare the disputed signature with the signatures in the papers available in the Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decision reported in D. PANDI ..VS.. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., (A.I.R. 2001 MADRAS 243). Reiterating the findings of the Trial Court, learned counsel has submitted that there is no reason warranting interference.

8. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides, Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and the materials on record. In such consideration, the following points arise for our consideration:-

i. Whether the approach of the Trial Court in comparing the signature of the Defendants in Ex.A.1 with other signatures in the Court is erroneous? - and -

ii. Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court suffers from any infirmity warranting interference?

9. Defence is one of total deni