JUDGMENT: The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount due by the defendant in respect the promissory note dated 1.2.1992.

3. The defendant denied the borrowing from the plaintiff. It is stated, in the written statement, that the defendant has not seen the plaintiff and he is a stranger to the defendant. The defendant was not having any transaction with the plaintiff. The defendant has not received any amount from the plaintiff. The defendant has purchased vessels and certain articles from Sri. Selvasubramania Vilas Vessels Shop, Virudhachalam on 9.6.1990 to the extent of Rs.13,980, out of which, the defendant has paid Rs.7,000 to the owner of the said shop, leaving the balance of Rs.6,980. The defendant has also paid Rs.2,500 and the remaining balance is Rs.4,480 (wrongly typed as Rs.41,480 in the written statement). The shop owner has compelled and demanded the defendant to put his signature on two stamped unwritten blank paper and the defendant had put his signature on the said two stamped unwritten blank paper. The shop owner has fabricated the said stamp paper as promissory not in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, the promissory note is a fabricated one. No consideration was passed under the promissory note. On 25.7.1992, the defendant has paid the entire balance of Rs.4,480.

4. The defendant also filed additional written statement, wherein he has contended that the plaintiff has no means to pay the suit promissory note amount. The plaintiff was also not having amount to pay the suit promissory note amount at the time of execution of the promissory note.

5. Based upon th above said pleadings, the trial Court framed necessary issues. The plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined the scribes P.W.2. The defendant had examined himself as D.W.1 and also examined one more witness. The plaintiff has filed Exs.A-1 to A-8 and the defendant has filed Ex.B-1. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that the suit promissory note was a fabricated one and dismissed the suit.

6. On appeal by the plaintiff in A.S. No.26 of 1997 before the Sub Court, Virudhachalam, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had necessary means to pay the suit promissory note amount. But, however, it was held that it would not entitle him to claim the amount under the suit promissory note, as the evidence of the plaintiff was prevaricating and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has perfected this second appeal.

7. When the second appeal came up for admission, this Court ordered only notice of motion and when it came up for hearing on 7.2.2002, the appellant requested this Court that the trial Court records are necessary to advance his argument and upon which, the trial Court records were sent for and they are available.

8. The appellant has raised five substantial questions of law in this second appeal and I consider the 1st question is as unnecessary and the substantial questions of law Nos.2 to 5 are extracted hereunder:

(i) When the respondent had categorically admitted his signature in Ex.A-1 promissory note, where the Courts below are correct in law in shifting the burden of proving Ex.A-1 promissory note on to the appellant?(ii) Whether the Courts below are correct in non-suiting the case of the appellant inspite of clear and categorical admission by the respondent that he has signed in Ex.A-1 promissory note?

(iii) When the burden cast upon the appellant had been shifted to the respondent by virtue of his admitting the signature in Ex.A-1 promissory note, whether the Courts below are correct in law in relying upon nugatory contentions of the respondent and thereby deciding in his favour?

(iv) Whether the presumption under Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be drawn up in the present case?

9. The learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff has submitted that when the defend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document