The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the authenticity of a promissory note and the presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

1. The Appellants/Defendants have filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.02.2000 in A.S.No.47 of 1984 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 19.10.1983 in O.S.No.1255 of 1982 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Virudhachalam.

2. The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.47 of 1984, dated 11.02.2000, has inter alia observed that 'the plea that suit Promissory Note has been created in a forgery manner, is not accepted and in fact, the suit Promissory Note is supported by consideration and resultantly, affirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in the main suit by dismissing the Appeal with costs.'

3. Before the trial Court, in the main suit, 1 to 3 Issues have been framed for determination. On the side of the Plaintiff, (later deceased), Witnesses PW1 to PW3 have been examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant/Defendant, witnesses DW1 has been examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3 have been marked.

4. Before the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.47 of 1984, Witness PW4 has been examined on the side of the Plaintiff (since deceased) and Ex.A.8 has been marked. On the side of the Appellants/Defendants, DW1 has been examined and Ex.B.4 to Ex.B.6 have been marked.

5. The trial Court, after contest on anappreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a clear conclusion that the loan taken under Ex.A.1 Promissory Note, dated 01.10.1979, is a family loan and that the Appellants 1 and 2/ Defendants have not established that a Partition has taken place in the joint family and accordingly, based on the assumption that the family is joint and only for a joint family necessity, the loan has been taken and as such, decreed the suit as prayed for with costs.

6. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following substantial questions of law for determination.

“1) Are not the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below are liable to set aside for misreading of the evidence available on merit?

2) In the absence of any cause of action or evidence as against the second defendant are the Courts below correct in decreeing the suit against the second defendant?

3) Are not the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below perverse?

4) Is not the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court liable to be set aside for non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C.?

7. The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on substantial questions of law Nos.1 to 3:

According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/ Defendants, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that Ex.A.1 Promissory Note, dated 01.10.1979, is a joint family loan and also, wrongly decreed the suit as against the Appellants/Defendants.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants urges before this Court that the Respondent/Plaintiff has not adduced any evidence before the trial Court that the purported borrowing as per Ex.A.1 Promissory Note, dated 01.10.1979, is by the 1st Appellant/1st Defendant as Kartha of the joint family and this aspect of the matter has not been adverted to by the Courts in a proper and real perspective.

9. Yet another submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants is that the Respondent/Plaintiff has not discharged his onus of proving Ex.A.1 Promissory Note, dated 01.10.1979 and even the evidence of PW2 and PW3 are liable to be rejected as they are interested witnesses.

10. Advancing his arguments, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants that even to the naked eyes of the normal person, it is clear that the signature of DW1 (1st Appellant/1st Defendant) is forged and as such, the suit should have been dismissed by the Courts below.

11. Lastly, it