The judgment emphasizes the importance of producing supporting documents and following mandatory provisions, such as issuing pre-suit notices and maintaining proper records, to substantiate claims in money lending disputes.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.08.1995 made in O.S.No.38 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram.

2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in the suit before the trial court. According to the appellant, the respondent having borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- on 01.03.1991, executed the suit promissory note, Ex.A.1, agreeing to repay the said sum together with interest at 18% p.a. Subsequently, the amount was not repaid and thereby the loan was not discharged. Hence, the appellant filed the suit seeking a decree against the respondent directing him to pay a sum of Rs.47,100/-with interest on the principal amount Rs.35,000/-at 18% p.a. and also for the costs.

3. The respondent herein as defendant has submitted in his written statement that he had not borrowed any amount from the appellant and executed the suit promissory note, as alleged by the appellant. According to him, he was only a subscriber of Chit Fund (P) Ltd., Bhuvanagiri run by the appellant herein. Being a subscriber, he had taken money in the auction held and the dues were subsequently settled by him and that his wife, A.Vijaya had also joined as a subscriber in a chit for the value of Rs.20,000/-in group No.BD for which, monthly subscription payable was Rs.500/- for 40 months. According to him, the chit transaction was over in the year 1987 and subsequently the respondent joined as a subscriber for chit amount of Rs.50,000/-in Group No.BF Chit No.6, for which monthly subscription was Rs.1,250/-for 40 months and that in the auction, he was the successful bidder and took the chit amount by reducing Rs.10,000/-in the value of the chit amount and for prompt payment of the balance for 18 months subscription of Rs.22,500/-, he executed a promissory note on 20.03.1990, which was registered at the office of the Registrar (Chit) , Bhuvanagiri. According to the respondent, the appellant had also obtained a blank promissory note signed by the respondent on the revenue stamps towards the chit transaction. He has further contended that though there was regular payment made by the respondent, there was a due of Rs.7,500/- and on 06.01.1992 the said amount of Rs.7,500/- was also paid by the respondent.

4. According to him, he handed over the blank signed promissory note format as security for the balance amount to be paid towards the chit transaction. However, the signed blank promissory note obtained from him was not returned by the appellant, even after the dues were paid. Hence, there is no attestation in the pro-note and no pre-suit notice was issued on him by the appellant before filing the suit. On the above grounds, the respondent had pleaded for dismissal of the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced by both sides.

5. On the side of the appellant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and the suit promissory note was marked Ex.A.1 and on the side of the respondent, the defendant was examined as D.W.1 apart from marking the documents Exs.B1 to B8. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, it is seen that the trial court, considering the oral and documentary evidence, has held that Ex.A.1 was not a genuine promissory note executed by the respondent, supported by consideration, but held that it was a fabricated document and accordingly, the suit was dismissed.

6. The points for determination in this appeal are:-

(i) Whether the finding of the trial Court that Ex.A1 is not a genuine promissory note and also not supported by consideration is sustainable in law?

(ii) Whether the appellant is entitled to a decree as prayed for in the suit?

7. According to the appellant / plaintiff, the respondent/defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from him on 01.03.1991 and executed the suit promissory note, Ex.A.1, agreeing to repay the said amount with 18% interest from the date of pro-note till the date of realisation.

8. In the written statement, the respondent