The reliability of documentary evidence and the necessity of obtaining promissory notes for loan transactions were central to the court's decision.

1. The defendants in O.S. No. 314 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddalore are the appellants in the above appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The plaintiff considering his relationship and friendship gave a sum of Rs.10,000 on 8.6.1988 and another sum of Rs.10,000 on 25.6.1988 to the defendants for the marriage of their son. The plaintiff did not get any receipt or promissory note from the defendants. Again on 10.5.1989, the first defendant received a sum of Rs.4,000 from the plaintiff by a cheque for his family expenses. The plaintiff is maintaining accounts regularly for the past fifteen years. The payments made to the defendants are entered into his accounts books. The payments made by the defendants are known to Mr. Desikan, a known friend of the plaintiff and the defendants. inspite of repeated demands, the defendants failed to pay the amount, hence the suit.

4. The first defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the second defendant which reads as follows:

The defendants are not related to the plaintiff. It is absolutely false to state that the defendants borrowed Rs.10,000 on 8.6.1988 and another sum of Rs.10,000 on 25.6.1988 for their son’s marriage. There is no necessity to borrow any amount. In fact, the first defendant had advanced monies to third parties including Mr. Desikan, the person mentioned in the plaint. The first defendant denied the averment that he received the cheque for Rs.4,000 dated 10.5.1989. The plaintiff colluded with Desikan, hatc hed up a plan and the plaintiff has made the false claim with an intention to harass the defendants. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim 18% interest. The plaintiff should have concocted the documents with the help of Desikan.

5. Onthe above said pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues, viz. :

(i) Whether the suit claim is true ?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claimed ?

(iii) To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to ?

6. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined Desikan as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-27 . The first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case, the Trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.24,000 and awarded 6% interest from the date of suit till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by that, the defendants have filed the above appeal.

7. I heard Mr. R. Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. R. Saseetharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that if really the plaintiff had advanced monies to the defendants, he would have obtained a promissory note from them or some other document evidencing the loan and without obtaining any such document the plaintiff would not have advanced monies to the defendant. The first defendant had denied his signature in Ex.A-8 cheque but the plaintiff has not proved that the signature in Ex.A-1 is that of the first defendant. But the Trial Court erred in comparing the signature in Ex.A-8’ with the signatures in the vakalath and written statement, in the absence of any expert opinion. Except entries in Ex.A-1 account book, no other documentary evidence is produced by the plaintiff. Because of the enmity between P.W.2 and defendants his evidence should not have been accepted. When there was outstanding to an extent of Rs.20,000, the plaintiff would not have advanced or given a further loan of Rs.4,000. On these submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant sought for setting aside the Trial Court’s judgment.

9. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Ex.A-1 Account Book, being a document kept in the course or regular business of the plaintiff is reliable and admissible in evidence. The genuinene