Relationship witness with a party to proceeding is no ground for discarding the evidence.

The defendant in O.S. No.573 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, who succeeded before the trial court, but lost in the first appellate court, is the appellant in the above second appeal.

2. The respondent herein has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.400 and Rs.2,400 with interest due thereon as said to be due under two promissory notes dated 22. 1971 and 12. 1973 respectively. The defendant/ appellant disputed the suit claim. So far as the promissory note dated 22. 1971 is concerned, the plea was that the same was not fully supported by consideration and the claim of the basis of the said promissory note has to fail on account of partial consideration only. As far as the promissory note dated 12. 1973 as also the endorsement dated 1. 1976 thereon was concerned, the claim of the defendant was that they were fabricated documents and not supported by any consideration. At the time of trial, both parties adduced oral evidence and so far as the plaintiff is concerned, he adduced documentary evidence also and there was no documentary evidence on the side of the defendant. On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned trial Judge sustained the claim due under the promissory note dated 22. 1971 and so far as the promissory note dated 12. 1973 is concerned, the learned trial Judge was of the view that the plaintiff has not proved that signature in the pronote as well as the endorsement was that of the defendant. In coming to such a conclusion the learned trial Judge has chosen to compare himself the signature found in the disputed document as sell as the admitted signatures and observed that the signatures in the disputed document, in his view, are not that of the defendant. Consequently, the suit came to be decreed partially. Aggrieved the plaintiff pursued the matter on appeal in A.S. No.28 of 1983 on the file of the District Court, South Arcot at Cuddalore. The learned first appellate Judge has chosen to re-appreciate the evidence as it appealed to him and set aside the findings of the learned trial Judge on the view that die court below committed serious error sin resting its conclusion to disbelieve the claim of the plaintiff by mere comparing the signatures found in the disputed promissory note and endorsement itself and it also committed an error in rejecting the evidence of P.W.2 on the only ground that he was the relative of the plaintiff and taking into account the reckless attitude and denial exhibited by the defendant in disputing his own signature found in the written statement filed in the case. The learned first appellate Judge considered the evidence on record afresh and reversed the finding of the learned trial Judge and thereby decreed the suit as prayed for in respect of the other promissory note also. Aggrieved the defendant has filed the above second appeal.

.3. Mr.R.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while elaborating the substantial question of law formulated at the time of the admission of the second appeal, contended that the first appellate court committed a grave error of law in not discussing the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and that the view taken by the learned first appellate Judge that the learned trial Judge had no power to himself compare the signature and come to a conclusion on the genuineness of the signature does not lay down the correct position of law and consequently the judgment and the decree of the first appellate Judge are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel, in support of his said stand taken on the observations of the first appellate Judge on the competency of the trial Judge to himself undertake the task of comparing the signatures and coming to the conclusion on the genuineness of signatures found, relied upon two earlier decisions of this Court In R.Ramaswamy v. Seethammal, (1990)2 L. W. 15, a learned single Judge of this Court held that inasmuch as Sec.73 of the Evidence Act does not speci