The main legal point established is the application of Section 118 and Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in determining the validity of a promissory note and the importance of expert analysis in handwriting comparison.

JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1999 passed in A.S. No. 8 of 1999 by the learned Sub Judge, Pattukkottai, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1999 passed in O.S. No. 8 of 1989 by the learned District Munsif, Pattukkottai.

2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. Broadly, but briefly, succinctly but narratively, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint and the relevant records could be portrayed thus:

The defendant in consideration of having received a sum of Rs. 3,600/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Six Hundred only), on 1.10.1985 executed the suit promissory note, Exhibit A-1, undertaking to repay the same with 12% interest per annum. However, the defendant committed default which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit.

4. The quintessence of the case of the defendant is that even though he signed the suit promissory note format and also specified the amount at the top of it, he did not fill up the body of the promissory note. He would also contend that he received a sum of Rs. 3,600/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Six Hundred only), from the plaintiff only under an unauthorised chit transaction and he also discharged it. The plaitniff had chosen to file this suit vexatiously. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exhibits A-1 to A-3 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Exhibits B-1 to B-3 were marked on the side of the defendant.

6. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

7. Being aggrieved by, the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred appeal in A.S. No. 8 of 1999, before the Sub Court, Pattukkottai, which Court also dismissed the appeal, accepting the plea of the defendant.

8. Being dissatisfied with, the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, the plaintiff preferred this appeal on the following main grounds among others:

Both the Courts below erred in not taking into consideration the presumption as contemplated under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and also the admissions made by the defendant as set out supra. Both the Courts below erred in comparing the self-serving document namely the diary of the defendant with the versions found in the body of the promissory note and arrived at the wrong conclusion that the versions found written in the body of the promissory note differs from the writings in the diary of the defendant. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below and for decreeing the original suit.

9. At the time of admitting this second appeal, my learned Predecessor framed the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the Courts below are right in dismissing the suit when there is a statutory presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act especially when the defendant has admitted the signature in the promissory note.”

10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Despite printing the name of the respondent, he has not chosen to appear.

11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that even though the defendant admitted candidly that he signed the suit promissory note in addition to having specified the amount at the top of the suit promissory note, yet both the Courts below without invoking the presumption as contemplated under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, rejected the claim of the plaintiff.

12. The judgments of both the Courts below, to say the least, are far from satisfactory. Here, is a case wherein the defendant would candidly admit the receipt of a sum of Rs. 3,600/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Six Hundred only) from the plaintiff and also his signature in the suit promissory note format, in addition to having admitted that he had fil