Presumption is in favour of promissory note.

The defendants in the Trial Court are the appellants. The first respondent has filed the suit on the promissory note stated to have been executed by the defendants on 05.01.1989 for an amount of Rs.10,000/- agreeing to repay the said amount along with 12% interest. The defendants have denied the receipt of the said amount. However, it was the specific case of the defendants that they have received Rs.8000/- from the plaintiff in 1981 but the plaintiff has obtained a promissory note from the defendants for Rs.10000/- on 011. 1981. It was at that time, according to the defendants, the plaintiff has obtained signatures of the defendants in a blank stamp paper. The defendants have returned the amount received by the plaintiff in 1981 and thereafter, there was no transaction between the defendants and the plaintiffs and at the insistence of the brother of the first defendant one Marimuthu, the suit promissory note was created in the blank paper. The promissory note was marked as Ex.A.1 dated 05.01.1989, the first defendant Ramasamy was examined as D.W.1 and the second defendant Selvaraj was examined as D.W.2.

2. According to the first defendant, he was in the habit of singing as Tamil and according to the second defendant as D.W.2, he used to sing as V.Selvaraj in English. However, the promissory note Ex.A.1 contains the signature of the first defendant as Tamil and the second defendant’s signature found in Tamil. The second defendant has also produced various documents like Ex.B.13 and B.16 to show that he is in the habit of singing his name in English.

.3. The Trial Court after appreciation of evidence has dismissed the suit. It was on the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the appellate Court has granted a decree on the promissory note and it was as against the reversing judgment of the first appellate Court, the defendants have filed the second appeal. While admitting the second appeal, the following question of law was framed -

."Whether the first appellate court was right and justified in law in reversing the decree passed by the Trial Court without dislodging the reason given by the Trial Court and acting on the oral testimony of the plaintiff alone in regard to the execution and proof of promissory note."

.4. The contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that when the plaintiffs have filed the suit for promissory note under Ex.A.1 and the defendants has come out specifically denying the signature, on the above said averments, it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the signature in the promissory note at least by examining the witnesses, who have singed in the promissory note. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the appellant it should be taken that the plaintiff, who has filed the suit has not taken any steps to prove his case. He would also submit that the Trial Court has taken the same into consideration and found that the plaintiff has not proved the execution of the promissory note by the defendants and it was on that basis the suit was dismissed.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that when admittedly, the defendants have executed a promissory note in the year 1981, namely, 011. 1981 and the defendants have taken a stand that said promissory note does contain the signature of the defendants, they ought to have produced the said promissory note dated 011. 1981, which is admitted and stated to have been discharged and the defendants got back the said promissory note and the very conduct of the defendants in not producing the said promissory note shows the present allegation of defendants’ in denying the signature in Ex.A.1 as false. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that when the defendants have come forward specifically with a positive plea that they have not signed the suit promissory note Ex.A.1, they ought to have taken steps to refer the signatures of Ex.A.1