The plaintiff in O.S.No. 148 of 1986 on the file of District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam had preferred this Second Appeal, since a decree passed in his favour in the trial court was reversed in the first appellate Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows

The defendant, on borrowing a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the plaintiff had executed a Pronote on 6.4.1983 for the said sum, agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest and the said pronote was shown to have been attested by Rajendran, As no amount was paid despite reminders, the suit was filed for recovery of the sum due on pronote.

3.The defendant filed his written statement, wherein it was contended as follows:

The alleged execution of the pronote is specifically denied. It is not supported with any consideration. The defendant was employed under one Gopal of Paraithodu in Kerala District, who had an estate. Since there were union activities against the employer, there was some misunderstanding between the latter and the defendant and so, the blank pronote forms containing the signature of the defendant available in the hands of Gopal were handed over to the plaintiff, who is the present employee of Gopal a