The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish the genuineness of a promissory note, and the court may rely on expert opinion and comparison of signatures to determine forgery.

This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree in Original Suit No.8 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin.

2. The averments in the plaint sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:-

The defendants after receiving a sum of Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff on 08.06.1984, had executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated demands, the defendants had failed to repay the amount due under the suit promissory note. The defendants had agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs.12% p.a. for the amount borrowed under the suit promissory note. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendants 1 and 3 have jointly filed their written statement contending that the alleged promissory note dated 08.06.1984 was not executed by the defendants. The husband of the first defendant died four years before. Till his life time, the plaintiff has not made any demand claiming towards Rs.35,000/- with interest under the suit promissory note. Till the life time of the husband of the first defendant, the plaintiff has not sent any notice of demand, claiming the suit amount. The alleged promissory note must be a forged document. The first defendants husband has not borrowed any amount for the welfare of the first defendant and for the welfare of the minor 4th defendant. There was no necessity for the first defendants husband to borrow a huge amount of Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff. The first defendants husband was an agriculturist and the value of the property owned by these defendants will not exceed more than Rs.1500/-. the defendants are entitled to the benefits under the Debt Relief Act. While the first defendants husband was alive, he mortgaged the residential house to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,000/-. Only to grab the house property of these defendants, the plaintiff has filed this vexatious suit. The first defendants husband died on 01.08.1984. There was a partition took place between the two wives and the children of the deceased husband of the first defendant in August 1984. In order to grab at the residential house of the defendants, the plaintiff has clantestantly manipulated the suit promissory note and filed this frivolous suit. The suit is barred by limitation. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. The defendants 2 and 3 have filed a joint written statement contending that the alleged suit promissory note is not a genuine document. The plaintiffs husband Kumarandi Reddiar is a professional money lender. On 24.09.1974 late Narayana Reddiar has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,000/-from Kumarandi Reddiar and had executed simple mortgage in favour of the said Kumarandi Reddiar. Even though, the rate of interest in the mortgage is only 12% per annum, the actual agreed interest was 24% per annum. With a view to grab at the mortgaged house, the said Kumarandi Reddiar was not collecting the interest and allowed it to accumulate. On 01.08.1984, Narayana Reddiar died. On 06.06.1984 a Panchayat was convened by the villagers to effect a partition among the children of the Narayana Reddiar in respect of the properties left behind by Narayana Reddiar. The panchayatars are [1]Thiru.P.Ramasami, S/o.Perumal Reddiar, [2] Thir.N.Ramasamy Reddiar, S/o Narayana Reddiar, [3] Thiru.A.Ramasamy Reddiar, S/o Arunachala Reddiar, [4]Thiru.Vaiyappan Reddiar, [5] Thiru.Pulpappu Reddiar S/o.Pon Rddiar, [6] Thiru.P.P.Selvaraj, S/o.Pothi Reddiar and [7] S.Ramachandran, S/o.Shanmugham Reddiar. In The said panchayat, Kumarandi Reddiar appeared and requested the panchayatars that a total sum of Rs.-- was due to him under the above mortgage towards principal and interest and that in lieu of the same, the mortgaged property may be conveyed to him. The panchayatars pleaded with Kumarandi Reddiar that in so far as the family of Narayana Reddiar did not own any other house for residence, it would not be proper for him to demand the house in settlement of his debt. The panchayatars requested Kumarandi Reddiar to