Acceptable verdict given by court has to be accepted.

1. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.

2. The suit was for recovery of Rs.27,959-47 towards principal and interest due on a hand-loan by a receipt dated 21. 1970.

.3. The plaintiffs have stated in the plaint that on 28-1-1979 the defendant telephoned to him and requested him for a hand-loan of Rs. 20,000 and the amount should be sent through his clerk Subramanian next day on 21. 1979. The defendant sent a letter though his clear Subramanian requesting the first plaintiff to send Rs. 15,000. Subramanian informed the first plaintiff that the defendant wanted to send whatever amount was available. After taking an acknowledgment from Subramanian, the plaintiff sent Rs. 19,588 to the defendant. As the transaction was a commercial one, the plaintiff claimed interest at 15% per annum. Since the money was paid by the second plaintiff, the wife of the first plaintiff, she has filed the suit along with her husband.

4. The defendant contended that there was no telephone call on 28-1-1979. The defendant was not at Maduranthakam from 17-1-1979 to 31-1-1979. The letter produced along with the plaint was written on 20-1-1978. Subramaniam who signed the receipt was not in defendants service. Subramanian was running a cycle shop. Though first plaintiff and defendant were friends they fell out. The letter is a fabricated one and used to make a false claim as the defendant could not oblige to the request of the plaintiffs. The letter used was an unutilised and old letter of the year 1978, but no amount was paid. The plaintiff had already filed three suits during the year 1980 and 1981 against the defendant. There was no mention about the suit in the notice or in the suit. The suit is vexatious and fraudulent.

5. The trial court found that the defendant did not borrow Rs. 19,558 from plaintiffs and Ex.A.I voucher is a forged and altered document. Hence, the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the District Judge Chengalpattu, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence, the defendant has preferred this second appeal in this Court.

6. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.S.Sadasharam is the that the voucher dated 28-1-1979 was a forged one and no amount was paid under the said document. He also contended that the old letter dated 28-1-1978 has been created and used for the purpose of creating Ex.A.I.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents Mr. T.V. Krishnamachari, on the other hand contended that the first appellate court who is the final court of facts has found that Ex.A-I was a genuine one and decreed the suit and this Court will not interfere with the finding of the lower appellate court.

8. The document Ex.A-I contains correction. The year at the top of Ex A.I is corrected as "79" from "78". The bottom, immediately after the signature is also torn. The said document is prepared in a letter head of the defendant, but only a portion of the letter head is there. The contents of the letter appear to have been written in a different ink compared with the date. The date is in thick blue ink while the contents are light blue ink. So these facts create some suspicion about the genuineness of the said document. The next vital factor is whether the endorsement at the back of Ex.A.I is also a genuine one i.e. Whether Ex.A.2, reflects the real transaction. Ex.A.2. was signed by one V.Subrmanian on 21. 1979. The date is mentioned both at the top of the endorsement and also at the bottom of the signature. The endorsement states that Rs. 19,558 only was received from Baghavandass Reddiar.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that V.Subramanian, was never in his employment. V.Subrmanian, who has signed at the back of ExA.A. was not examined. On the other hand, the defendant has examined one Subramania Pillai, who was his clerk, as D.W.2., who alone was used to be sent to the plaintiff. D.W.2 has categorically denied that