Legal presumption in favour of plaintiff has been rebutted by acceptable evidence.

(Appeal against the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.146 of 1991 on the file of the District Judge Salem, dated 31.10.1991.)

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.146 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Salem, is the appellant in the above appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note on 09.02.1985 agreeing to pay the same with interest at Rs.1.50 per hundred per month to the plaintiff or his order on demand. But in spite of repeated demands the defendant failed to pay the amount due under the promissory note and hence a notice dated 31.07.1986 was issued calling upon the defendant to pay the amount and for that a reply containing false allegations was sent by the defendant. Since the defendant is owning properties worth more than two lakhs and his annual income will be nearly Rs.10,000/-, he is not entitled to any benefits under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Acts. Hence the suit.

4. A detailed written statement has been filed denying the allegations contained in the plaint and the relevant averments contained therein are set out below:-

(a) The defendant did not execute the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 9.2.85. It is totally false to allege that the defendant executed the promissory note, agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum. For the notice dated 31.7.86 a reply dated 05.08.1986 was sent by the defendant. The defendant is owning properties worth more than Rs.2lakhs and the annual income is more than Rs.10,000/- and he is not entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Acts.

(b) The defendant has denied the cause of action alleged in paragraph 6 of the plaint and it is contended that the suit filed on the basis of the forged promissory note is not maintainable in law. A specific defence has been taken in the written statement which is extracted below:-

“The plaintiff is the Managing Director of Sree Devi Finance at Ayothipattanam. The defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.3000/- from the finance on 29.10.84. The plaintiff had obtained the signatures of the defendant in a number of printed blank pronote forms at the time of disbursing the loan to the defendant. The plaintiff would have used such blank pronote form for completing the ante-dated promissory note. The signature in the promissory note is not that of the defendant. The plaintiff ought to have used one such blank pronote form containing the impressions of the defendant for forging the anti-dated promissory note, engrossing a huge sum of Rs.50,000/- as the amount advanced under the impugned promissory note. The defendant was disposing a land belonging to him in Arur taluk in Dharmapuri District. The plaintiff was offering a very low amount. The plaintiff was not able to purchase the property from the defendant. This is the immediate provocation for forging the promissory note for Rs.50,000/- anti-dating the same. The plaintiff had no means to advance a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 9.2.85. Further this defendant was not in need of a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 9.2.85.“

With an intention to grab the other properties of the defendant the suit has been filed.

“The attestors to the promissory note are the close friends and associates of the plaintiff. The scribe is the clerk of the plaintiff when the plaintiff was the President of the society in Udayapatty village. The plaintiff, the attestors and the scribe have colluded together and brought into existence the forged promissory note.”

(c) An additional written statement has been filed by the defendant contending that the suit claim is barred under Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act, as any amount exceeding Rs.10,000/- should be advanced only by the Account Payee Cheque but in this case it is not been done so.

5. On the abo