The plaintiff proved the execution of the promissory note, and the court drew the presumption of consideration under S. 118-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favor of the plaintiff, leading to the dismissal of the second appeal.

This second appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vellore made in A. S. No. 70/87 dated 23-12-1988 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Ranipet passed in O.S. No. 484 of 1985 dated 10-7-1987.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit against the appellant seeking a decree for a sum of Rs. 8, 080/- with further interest with the following averments. On 15-11-1982 the appellant/defendant executed a promissory note in favour of Kamalammal, the mother of the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 6, 000/- and received the said sum that day agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest at 30% per annum. The defendant did not pay the said amount despite repeated demands. Notice dated 2-8-85 was issued and the same was acknowledged on 6-8-85, but there was no reply. The said Kamalammal died leaving her only son, the respondent/plaintiff as her only heir to succeed to her and hence the defendant/appellant was bound to pay to the plaintiff the amount due under the said promissory note. The respondent/plaintiff obtained a succession certificate from the Sub Court, Vellore. The defendant/appellant was a businessman and apart from that he has got immovable properties worth about Rs. 1.00 lakh in the village and had an annual income of Rs. 30, 000/- and hence he was not entitled to the benefits of any of the Debt Reliefs Acts by Act 4/38, 13/80 or any other Act. Though the plaintiff was entitled to interest at the rate of 30% per annum, he had claimed interest only at 12% per annum. Towards the principal and interest, the appellant/defendant was liable to pay Rs. 8, 080/- and hence the suit.

3. The appellant/defendant contested the suit alleging that he never borrowed any amount from any one by name Kamalammal and never executed any promissory note and as such the alleged promissory note dated 15-11-1982 was a forged one and the said Kamalammal was not known to the defendant at all. One T. B. Subramania Mudaliar of Ramapalayam village had forged the alleged suit promissory note in the name of the said Kamalammal and had filed the false and vexatious suit in the name of the plaintiff wantonly with ulterior motive due to the enmity between him and the appellant/defendant and the father of the defendant and that the respondent/plaintiff was only a tool in his hands to file the suit after forging the alleged promissory note; that the defendant had issued a proper reply notice with true contents to the notice issued by the plaintiff through his lawyer; that it was false to state that the defendant replied the notice of the plaintiff; that the defendant was not bound to pay any debt to the plaintiff on any account much less the suit debt which was based on a promissory note; that it is not correct to state that the defendant was not entitled to the benefits under the provisions of Debt Relief Act; that there was no cause of action for the suit and hence the suit was to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court on the above pleadings framed the necessary issues, tried the suit and dismissed the same with costs. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the sub Court wherein the judgment of the trial Court was reversed. The aggrieved defendant has brought forth this second appeal. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court for consideration.

1) Whether the Court below is right in reversing the judgment of the trial court in throwing the burden of proof on the appellant, when the respondent himself has not established that the signature in the suit document is that of the appellant?

2) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court is not vitiated by misleading the evidence in substantial matters viz., regarding the place of execution of the document, payment of consideration?

5. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money of Rs. 8, 080/- with subsequent interest alleging that