Comparison done by the expert in the forensic laboratory is a scientific.

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 5.12.1994 made in O.S. No. 123 of 1991 on the file of the Court of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode. The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking for a decree against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 77,000/- with subsequent interest and costs. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 15.3.1988 from the plaintiff for his urgent family expenses promising to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum on demand either to the plaintiff or his order and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and inspite of repeated demands, the defendant did not pay any amount towards the principal or interest and on 2.2.1991, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant and the defendant sent a reply with false and untenable averments and the defendant is not entitled to any benefit under the Tamilnadu Debt Relief Act.

3. The defendant in his written statement has stated that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in his favour and the signature contained in the suit promissory note is not his signature and it is a forged one. According to the defendant, he and the plaintiff are close relatives and the plaintiff and one Murugayyan purchased a lorry jointly, bearing Registration No. TNG 2976, and used the same as public carrier and subsequently, the plaintiff requested the defendant to join as a partner for running the lorry and the defendant agreed and contributed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in the year 1979 and thereafter, another lorry, bearing registration No. MDS 6886, was purchased in the name of the plaintiff on hire purchase, and in the year 1983, when Murugayyan left the business of the plaintiff and the defendant, the R.C. Book for the lorry, bearing Registration No. TNG 2976, was transferred to the defendants name and a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was paid to Murugayyan for his retirement from the partnership and subsequently, the plaintiff and the defendant jointly were running the public carrier and the plaintiff was in management and during that period, on account of the loss sustained and for the debts borrowed, the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards interest and the father of the defendant on his behalf paid a sum of Rs. 60,000/- on various dates for the repairs effected. It is further stated by the defendant that he and the plaintiff also borrowed debts from Karur Chit Funds jointly and executed the pro-note jointly and since the dues to the lorries were not paid properly, subsequent borrowing was made at Arachalur Sakthi Murugan Bankers and in the year 1987, the lorry, bearing Registration No. MDS 6886, was sold and in the year 1988, the other lorry, bearing Registration No. TNG 2976, was sold and the entire amount was utilised for discharge all the loans. It is further stated by the defendant that he has sustained a total loss of Rs. 1,00,000/-in running the lorries and the plaintiff became inimical with him alleging that he has sustained loss to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and with a view to gain, if possible, the plaintiff has created a false pro-note and filed the suit based on the same and the attestor to the suit promissory note is a close friend of the plaintiff and the defendant does not know the Scribe of the suit promissory note. According to the defendant, there is no necessity to borrow such a huge amount and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount and the defendant gave a suitable reply for the demand notice issued by the plaintiff. It is further stated by the defendant that he and the plaintiff have jointly executed pro-notes when they borrowed from Karur Chit Funds and Arachalore Sakthi Murugan Bankers and the plaintiff could have utilised the signatures in those pro-notes for forging the defendants signature in the suit promissory note and the plaintiff is not entitled