The unsuccessful plaintiff throughout the trial as well as first appellate proceedings, has preferred the present second appeal.

2. On the contention that the defendant, having received a sum of Rs.6000/= on 38. 1982, executed the suit A pronote and having received a sum of Rs.1500/= on 38. 1983, executed the suit B pronote, but, refused to repay the amount inspite of the demand made, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money.

3. The defendant, stoutly denied the execution of the suit A pronote and B pronote. The passing of considerations on those pronotes also was denied by the defendant. To wreak vengeance on account of the dispute that had arisen in the business transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff has fabricated those two pronotes, it has been contended by the defendant.

4. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW1, the scribe under Exs.A1 and A2 was examined as PW2 and the attestors to Exs.A1 and A2 were examined as PW3 and PW4. As many as five documents were marked on his side. On the side of the defendant, the defendant was examined as DW1 and one Thangavel Udayar was examined as DW2.

5.