The above second appeal has been filed by the defendant in O.S. No.268 of 1981, who lost before both the courts below.

.2. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,518 with future interest at 9% p.a. on Rs.3,000 from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realisation.

3. The case of the plaintiff/respondent before the trial court was that the appellant/ defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,000 from the plaintiff on 5. 1979 and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 9% p.a. on demand. It is stated that inspite of the demand made and the notice issued, the defendant not only filed to pay the amount, but issued a reply containing false and untrue allegations driving the plaintiff to the necessity of the suit.

4. The defendant/ appellant filed a written statement contending that the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff, that he did not execute any promissory note, that the promissory note is a fabricated one and the plaintiff had no funds to lend such an amount and the defendant also did not have any necessity to borrow from the plaintiff on 5. 1979. It was al