Comparison of signature in disputed matters to be done by the experts.

Kandasamy, the respondent herein, filed a suit against Marappa Gounder, the appellant herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,060/-, on the basis of a promissory note executed by him. The trial Court dismissed the suit, observing that the promissory note had not been executed by the defendant. However, in the appeal filed by the respondent herein, the lower appellate Court decreed the suit by allowing the appeal. Hence, this Second Appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The defendant obtained a loan of Rs.16,000/- on 03.06.1992 from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note for the said sum. Since the amount was not paid in time despite repeated demands, the plaintiff sent a lawyer's notice on 24.06.1994. On receipt of the notice, the defendant sent a reply, containing false allegations. Hence, the suit.

3. The case of the defendant is as follows :

The defendant has no transaction whatsoever with the plaintiff in either obtaining any loan or in executing any promissory note. The promissory note is a forged one, as he has not signed in the same. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the issues were framed. On the side of plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. On the other side, defendant himself got examined as D.W.1. Ultimately, the trial Court, mainly on the basis of the comparison of the promissory note together with the documents, concluded that the signature was not put by the defendant and dismissed the suit.

5. However, the lower appellate Court, placing reliance on P.Ws.1 to 3, concluded that the plaintiff has proved his case and that the mode of comparison by the trial Court was improper. Hence, this Second Appeal.

6. When the appeal came up for admission before this Court, this Court, instead of admitting the appeal, thought it fit to only issue Notice of Motion. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent, after entering his appearance, would submit that he is ready for final disposal of the appeal.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that the lower appellate Court, without considering the reason given by the trial Court for dismissal of his suit, reversed the decree, when there is no acceptable evidence to show that the defendant executed the promissory note and therefore, the decree passed by the lower appellate Court is to be set aside and the decree passed by the trial Court is to be restored.

8. I heard the learned counsel for the respondent.

9. Learned Counsel for the respondent would contend by citing various authorities that the trial Court, by mere comparing the signature found in the promissory note with the other documents, came to its own conclusion, without appreciating the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, and the said approach is wrong and as such, the decree passed by the lower appellate Court is correct and the same is laible to be confirmed.

10. I carefully considered the submissions made on either side.

11. On going through the judgment of the trial Court, it is noticed that the trial Court compared the disputed signature found in the promissory note with the signature found in other documents such as, Written Statement etc. filed by the defendant. Curiously, the defendant himself would admit in the cross-examination that the signature found in the vakalat filed by the counsel and the signature found in the summons sent by the Court were not put by him. But, the trial Court, unfortunately, compared the signature in the promissory note with the signature in the summons and found that there is a difference. P.W.1 speaks about the execution of document by the defendant in his favour and handing over the promissory note amount to defendant. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the scribe and the attestor respectively. When it is the case of the defendant that the signature found in the promissory note is not his signature, it is for him to prove the same by getting an expert's opinion. No such step has been taken b