The evidentiary value of witness depositions and the legal principles related to admissions and material alteration were central to the court's decision.

1. The Appellant/Defendant has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.09.1998 in A.S.No.19 of 1998 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Gobichettipalayam in confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 24.12.1997 in O.S.No.29 of 1997 passed by the Learned District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.

2. The First Appellate Court, the Learned Sub Judge, Gobichettipalayam, while delivering the Judgment in A.S.No.19 of 1998, on 16.09.1998, has among other things observed that "though there are wide contradictions in regard to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it cannot be construed as they change the character of the suit" and also opined that Ex.A1-Pronote dated 09.02.1994 has been proved based on the oral and documentary evidence and accordingly dismissed the appeal with costs. Earlier in the main suit, the trial Court has framed one to three issues for determination. On behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff, witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.A1 and A2 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant/Defendant, D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B1 and B2 have been marked.

3. The trial Court, after scrutinising the oral and documentary evidence available on record has come to a consequent conclusion that though it is true that in the evidence of P.W.1, there is a contradiction, yet there is truth in the evidence of P.W.1 and therefore, importance need not be given to the contradiction and resultantly held that Ex.A1-Pronote dated 09.02.1994 is true and has not been a created one and decreed the suit as prayed for by the Respondent/Plaintiff with costs.

4. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following Substantial Question of Law:

"Whether the findings arrived at by the Courts below that the promissory note on which the suit is filed is supported by consideration, when the defendant had denied the consideration, in the context of the evidence of the plaintiff in an earlier suit which is marked as Ex.B2?"

The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Substantial Question of Law :

5. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant that P.W.1 (Plaintiff), in his deposition in the earlier suit, viz. Ex.B2 has clearly stated that he has no other pending Pronotes with him apart from Ex.A1-Pronote dated 09.02.1994 and this deposition of the Respondent/Plaintiff will unerringly point out that the suit claim based on Ex.A1-Pronote dated 09.02.1994 is an untrue and incorrect one.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant urges before this Court that the Respondent/Plaintiff filed the present suit by making material alterations in the Pronote dated 09.02.1991 (the amount due on the same has already been repaid by the Appellant/Defendant).

7. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant, the Appellant/Defendant has already repaid the entire amount due on Pronote dated 09.02.1991 to the Respondent/Plaintiff and settled the said loan amount and that due to misunderstanding between the parties, the Respondent/Plaintiff with malafide intention and ulterior motive has made material alteration in the Pronote dated 09.02.1991, more particularly in respect of the year of execution from 1991 to 1994 by altering the last number 1 as 4. Also that, at the time of execution of the said Pronote on 09.02.1991, none has signed as a witness in it.

8. Added further, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant that the Respondent/Plaintiff obtained the signature of his brothers brother-in-law as an attesting witness and with the material alterations and fabrications, he used the Pronote and falsely claimed that the Appellant/Defendant has borrowed Rs.8,300/- from him on 09.02.1994.

9. The stand of the Appellant/Defendant is that P.W.2, in his evidence before the trial Court has clearly deposed that he signed as a witness in the suit Pronote about seven years prior to his examination in the year 199