Maker or the person who signed cannot be held liable.

V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.

1. This is a revision brought by the plaintiff in a simple money suit of a small cause nature against the respondent. The suit was brought for the recovery of Rs, 550 and interest at 12 per cent, per annum thereon on a promissory note. The defendant resisted the suit. He pleaded that there was no cause of action for the suit. More particularly he pleaded that the suit promissory note could not be sued upon, because he merely signed his name on a stamped paper which was blank, and it had been filled up at the instance of the plaintiff to make it appear that it was for Rs. 550. The truth, according to the defendant was, his signature on a stamped blank paper was taken by the plaintiff in accordance with the plaintiff's practice in such transactions. According to the defendant, he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 220 agreeing to repay it in monthly instilments of Rs. 22 and that by June, 1976, that loan had been discharged by him in that manner. Nevertheless, according to the defendant, the plaintiff had obtained stamp paper with his signature only in accordance with the practice followed by the plaintiff in such transactions. The plaintiff, it was alleged, undertook to return the blank stamped paper when the loan of Rs. 220 was fully discharged by the defendant. In fact, however, even after the loan of Rs. 220 v/as fully discharged, the plaintiff did not return the stamped paper, but had given a false information to the effect that he had destroyed that piece of paper.

2. At the trial, the Suit promissory note was marked in evidence by the plaintiff. He also gave oral evidence as P.W. 1. Another witness called on by him at the trial was P.W. 2, who represented that he was the scribe of the document. Their evidence was that the defendant did not sign any blank paper, but entered his signature only after the text of the promissory note had been written. The defendant in his testimony denied these allegations. He deposed that he only gave the blank stamped paper carrying his signature, on the undertaking that the plaintiff would return it after the earlier loan of Rs. 220 was discharged.

3. The learned District Munsif considered the oral evidence of the witnesses on either side and also examined the promissory note, marked by the plaintiff, as the foundation of the suit claim. The learned District Munsif found that there were scorings and internal contradictions in the so - called promissory note. He also found a discrepancy between the evidence on the plaintiff's side and the pleadings on the basis of which the suit claim was sought to be (sic) made. According to the plaint, the defendant executed the promissory note for Rs. 550 on 21st November, 1977, on the defendant receiving the amount on that very day. In contrast, the evidence of the plaintiff as well as the scribe of the text of the promissory note was to the effect that the defendant had received the amount on 19th November, 1977, but, executed the promissory note two days later, namely on 21st November, 1977. The learned District Munsif found, there was a correction regarding the date of the promissory note, which could not be reconciled either with the date of execution of the promissory note or with the dates of payments according to the English calendar, namely, 18th November, 1977 and 21st November, 1977. The learned District Munsif also found that there was a correction in the Tamil Andu set out in the promissory note. The Tamil Andu 1152 was found corrected into 1153 and this introduced another element of incongruity in the document. On this analysis of the evidence, the learned District Munsif recorded a finding that the promissory note was written subsequent to the signature entered by the defendant on the stamps. He further found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that on 21st November, 1977, the defendant had borrowed the sum of Rs. 550 and executed the suit promissory note. The learned District Munsif was inclined to believe the evide