The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a handwriting expert to further examine the disputed signature and the court's emphasis on discrepancies in the evidence presented by both parties.

The appellant/defendant has filed this appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 28. 2001 made in O.S.No.326 of 1996 on the file of Sub Court, Hosur.

2.The short facts of the respondent/plaintiffs case are as follows:

The appellant/defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-from the respondent/plaintiff on 04.09.1992 and executed a pronote promising to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum to the respondent/plaintiff are to his order and that the appellant/defendant has received the consideration in cash in the presence of attestors and scribe of the promissory note. The appellant/plaintiff in order to discharge the debts incurred in connection with the purchase of property in her name and to run a hotel business has borrowed the money.

3. The appellant/defendant has not paid the principal or the interest amount. The respondent/plaintiff has caused a legal notice on 06. 1995 calling upon the appellant/ defendant to pay the due amount under pronote. The appellant/defendant has issued a reply stating that the suit pronote is a forged one and that she has not executed any pronote and further that she received a sum of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.1,20,000/-in the year 1992 from the respondent/plaintiff. In another notice dated 20.05.1995 the appellant/defendant has mentioned about the business and other transactions between the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendants husband. The respondent/plaintiff has convened a panchayat comprising of Muthukrishnan, Muniyandi Vilas Ramachandran, Paramasivam, Sadiq, Thennai Ganeshan and others and before the Panchayators, the appellant/defendant has agreed to pay the amount but has not paid the amount. Therefore, the suit is filed for recovery of a principal sum of Rs.4,00,000/-and an interest sum of Rs.1,08,000/-(for the period from 09. 1992 to 09. 1995 at 9% per annum for Rs.4,00,000/-) totalling in all a sum of Rs.5,08,000/-together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit and with costs.

.4. The appellant/defendant in the written statement has taken the pleas that she has no debts to discharge and not in requirement of any amount to run the hotel business and further that she has not executed the pronote and has not received the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondent/ plaintiff and that suit pronote is a forged document not a true and genuine one and moreover, the signature of the appellant/defendant in the suit pronote is not that of her and that she has not affixed a signature in the suit pronote and inasmuch as the same is not a valid one, she is not entitled to claim the suit amount etc.

5. It is also the stand of the appellant/defendant that the respondent/ plaintiff has no means to pay such a huge amount of Rs.4,00,000/-to her and the fact is that the respondent/plaintiff and her husband Kannan have been running a non-vegetarian hotel as partners at Hosur and due to some misunderstanding the partnership has been desolved in 1987 and the hotel business cannot be continued and then, her husband Kannan has been running the non-vegetarian hotel in the name of Sri Venkateswara Tea Centre at the near Bangalore Road near the old bus stand and that the respondent/plaintiff has been running a separate non-vegetarian hotel under the name of Poornima in Hosur Town and that her husband Kannan died on 011. 1992 and after his demise the appellant and her sons have continued to run the hotel of Venkateswara Tea Centre at the same place and that she has purchased a house in Survey No.367/1 at Mookandavalli Village, Sipcot, Hosur on 21. 1986 and after purchase, she has obtained a loan of Rs.60,000/- from the Co-operative Housing Society and utilising her savings she has constructed a terrace house in the building.

.6. Added further, it is the contention of the appellant /defendant that the respondent/plaintiffs wife has purchased the adjacent site and she has constructed a house therein by obtaining a loan and after constructing the said house