Court cannot compare disputed signatures.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit O.S.No.202 of 1983 in the court of the Sub Judge, Chengalpattu for recovery of a sum of Rs.35,683.45 including interest due under promissory note executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that both the defendants received Rs.21,900 on 30.10.1980 and Rs.8,680 on 15. 1982 and executed two promissory notes and they repaid Rs.1,900 and it was endorsed on 10. 1983 and in spite of repeated demands, the defendants did not pay the amount and hence the suit.

3. Thedefendants filed written statement contending as follows:

The defendants did not receive any amount from the plaintiff as stated in the plaint. The plaintiff is a muslim lady and a house-wife. The plaintiffs husband, one Mohammed Ghouse is a money lender and has been doing the money lending business for the past 20 years or more by getting the pronotes and mortgage deeds executed in favour of his wife, the plaintiff, for the money advanced by him. Only the plaintiffs husband Mohammed Ghouse was giving receipts or vouchers, for the sums received by him, to the defendants prior to 15. 1976 and the interest due on such advances was calculated at the rate of 30% per annum. He made the defendants to execute a registered simple mortgage deed for Rs.20,000 on 15. 1976 in favour of his wife, the plaintiff. Subsequently on 30.10.1980 he calculated interest on the simple mortgage deed amount of Rs.20,000 at the rate of 30% per annum and after giving credit to Rs.5,000 which the defendants had already paid, he got executed one of the suit promissory note for a sum of Rs.21,900 by the defendants in favour of his wife, the plaintiff. Again on 15. 1982 the said Mohammed Ghouse calculated subsequent interest on the mortgage deed mentioned amount of Rs.20,000 and interest on the said pronote mentioned amount of Rs.21,900 from the date 30.10.1980 and arrived at Rs.11,780 as the total interest due and after deducting an amount of Rs.3,100 paid by the defendants on 15. 1982 itself for which a receipt was also given by the said Mohammed Ghouse, he got another pronote executed for a sum of Rs.8,680 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for the said interest due, which is the second suit pronote. Even the plaint mentioned payment of Rs.1,900 as by the defendants was made by them only in January 1983 and not on 10. 1988. The defendants had never borrowed any amount on the suit promissory notes and these suit promissory notes were obtained from the defendants only for the interest and compound interest calculated on the said simple mortgage money. The plaintiff also issued a legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to discharge the simple mortgage dated 15. 1976, even without giving credit to the amounts totalling to Rs.10,000 which was paid by the defendants. The defendants are not having any immovable properties of worth exceeding Rs.25,000. Their household income does not exceed Rs.4,800 and they are not assessed to income-tax.

4. Onthe above pleadings the trial court framed three issues and dismissed the suit.

.5. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that for interest on the mortgage deed, the two suit pronotes Exs.A-1 and A-2 were executed and they are not supported by consideration. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit amount on the strength of the two pronotes under Exs.A-1 and A-2 contending that the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.21,900 and Rs.8,680 and executed Exs.A-1 and A-2. In Ex.A-1, the money was borrowed for agricultural expenses and in Ex.A-2 for family expenses the defendants had borrowed a sum of Rs.8,680 from the plaintiff. In Exs.A-1 and A-2, it is stated that the defendants received cash consideration of Rs.21,900 and Rs.8,680 and executed Exs.A-1 and A-2. The defendants have also paid a sum of Rs.1,900 on 10. 1983 and endorsement has also been made in Ex.A-