The court emphasized the importance of obtaining expert opinion on disputed signatures and highlighted the principles embodied in Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

1. This Second appeal is focussed by the original defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007 passed in A.S.No.76 of 2006 by the First Additional District Court, Erode, reversing the judgment and decree of the first Additional Sub-Court, Erode in O.S.No.870 of 2003. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. Narratively but precisely, broadly but briefly, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

(a) The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note as against the defendant.

(b) The defendant filed the written statement resisting the suit denying the very signatures in the suit promissory note.

(c) Whereupon issues were framed by the trial Court.

(d) The plaintiff-Pushpa examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. The defendant-Chandramohan examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.B1 to B9 were marked.

3. Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit as against which the plaintiff preferred appeal. Whereupon the appellate Court decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the defendant preferred this Second Appeal on various grounds inter alia to the effect that the first appellate Court itself simply held as though he compared the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures of the defendant in the Vakalat, deposition etc. and reversed the finding of the trial Court and decreed the original suit.

4. The following substantial question of law is found suggested in the grounds of appeal:

"(a) Whether the first appellate Court is correct in law in decreeing the suit especially when the defendant has taken the defence that the suit document is a rank forgery and that the plaintiff has not discharged his initial burden of proving the due executing before availing the benefit of legal presumption under section 118 of the N.I. Act."

(extracted as such)

5. After hearing both sides, I am of the considered view that the following substantial questions of law could be framed:

(1) Whether the first appellate Court was justified in comparing the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures of the defendant in the Vakalat and deposition?

(2) Whether the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal passed by the trial Court, based on his own interpretation of the evidence and on his own comparison of the signature?

(3) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court?

6. All the aforesaid substantial questions of law are taken together for discussion as they inter linked and inter woven with one another.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant advanced his arguments, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

The trial Court on finding that the plaintiff did not discharge his burden of proof, correctly dismissed the suit and as against which the first appellate Court was not expected to reverse the finding on his own analysis of the disputed signatures with the admitted post litem motem signatures of the defendant. The first appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction in doing so warranting interference in the Second Appeal.

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would pray for setting aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court.

8. In an attempt to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the appellant/defendant, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit thus:

There is no rule of law to the effect, that whenever the defendant disputed the signature in a pro note, necessarily the matter has to be referred to the handwriting expert for getting opinion. In this case, no doubt the relatives attested the pro note and they also d