The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the case, and absence of expert opinion on signature/thumb impression may not necessarily invalidate the genuineness of the document.

This appeal is focused as against the judgment and decree dated 24. 1990 made in O.S.No.14 of 1989 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge. Erode, Periyar District. For convenience sake the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

2. Niggard and bereft of details, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:

The defendants jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff on 1. 1986 and in consideration of the same, the suit promissory note Exhibit A-1 was executed by them undertaking to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a. Subsequently, they committed default in paying the amount despite demand. The plaintiff after issuing pre-suit notice dated 112. 1998 which evoked no response, filed the suit for recovery of the amount due under the pro-note with interest and costs.

3. Per contra, denying and refuting, challenging and impugning the allegations/averments in the plaint, the first defendant filed the written statement, which was adopted by the second defendant. The gist and kernel of it, would run thus:

The defendants did not borrow a sum of Rs.25,000/- much less any sum from the plaintiff on 1. 1986 and they did not execute the promissory note also. The plaintiffs pre-suit notice was duly replied by the defendants by sending their reply notice on 112. 1988. The plaintiff is none but the relative of D2. There was a dispute relating to D2’s father’s properties and the plaintiff intervened for settling the dispute, but, the defendants did not agree to it. Hence, the plaintiff with the connivance of the relatives of the second defendant forged and created the suit promissory note so as to coerce the defendants. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3, the attestors and P.W.4, the scribe of Exhibit A-1 and Exhibits A-1 to A-5 were marked. The first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 to B-12 were exhibited on the side of the defendants. The trial Court ultimately decreed the suit as prayed for and also awarded subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the principal amount from the date of the suit till the date of repayment.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and the decree of the trial Court, the appellants/defendants has filed this appeal on the following grounds among others:

(a) The judgment and the decree of the trial Court is against law, weight of evidence and all probabilities of the case.

(b) Despite the defendants denied their signature and thumb impression affixed in Exhibit A-1, nonetheless, the trial Court simply decreed the suit without any proof.

(c) Ignoring the fact that in the Vakalat D2’s signature is found but in the pro-note, Exhibit A-1, her signature is not found but only her purported thumb impression, the trial Court decreed the suit.

(d) Disregarding the inconsistencies and contradictions in the deposition of P.Ws.2 and 3, the trial Court decreed the suit without considering the fact that D1 is a man of immense means and that he had no necessity to borrow money much less a sum of Rs.25,000/- under Exhibit A-1 pro-note.

Accordingly, the appellant prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and for the dismissal of the original suit.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants and there is no representation on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs.

7. the points for consideration are as to:

(1) Whether the trial Court decreed the suit erroneously believing Exhibit A-1 as a genuine document and without having any evidence before it?

(2) Whether there is any infirmity in the judgment and the decree of the trial Court?

8. Point No.1:

Learned counsel for the plaintiff would advance his arguments that in view of the defendants having denied the signature/thumb impre