The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the execution of a promissory note, and the court has the power to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures.

The present appeal is preferred by the Defendant in the suit against the judgment and decree dated 04.7.2007 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi, in A.S. No. 48 of 2005 reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.7.2004 passed by the I Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi, in O.S. No. 393 of 2001 filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,400/- with future interest based on a promissory note.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that on 04.6.1998, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/-from the plaintiff at the rate of 12% per annum and executed suit promissory note Ex.A.1. Despite several demands to repay the amount, as the defendant had not settled the amount, the suit has been filed.

3. The defence of the defendant was that the suit promissory note is created for the purpose of the suit and that the signature contained therein was not that of the defendant. As there was an existing enmity between the plaintiff and the defendant on account of a land dispute, in order to accede the defendant, the plaintiff had created the promissory note. The promissory note is not supported by a valid consideration. The defendant also had replied to the suit notice on 24.5.2001 and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff had marked Exs. A.1 to A.3 besides examining herself as P.W. 1. On the side of the defendant, though no witness was examined, Exs. B.1 and B.2 were marked.

5. The trial Court, on evaluation of the evidence available, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had not proved Ex.A.1 promissory note in the manner known to law since the defendant had disputed the signature therein. However, on appeal by the plaintiff, the Lower Appellate Court after appreciating the facts, compared the signature by itself and found the suit promissory note to be valid and allowed the appeal thereby decreeing the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the present Second Appeal.

6. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed for consideration:-

"Whether the Lower Appellate Court has erred in law in comparing the signature found in the suit pronote with written statement and vakalat of appellant?"

7. Heard Mr. S. Sounthar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P. Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records.

8. Learned counsel for the defendant /appellant contended that the Lower Appellate Court was not correct in comparing the signature found in the suit promissory note with the signature found in the written statement, vakalat, etc. which are subsequent to the filing of the suit. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of P.W.2 has not been considered by the Lower Appellate Court as he categorically stated that no consideration was passed for the suit promissory note. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that when the signature was disputed by the defendant, the plaintiff ought to have proved the same by sending the document to an expert and proved the same in the manner known to law.

9. The only aspect that has to be examined is whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in comparing the signatures by itself without sending the document to an expert.

10. When the execution of a suit promissory note is disputed, the same can be proved

(i) by sending the same to the handwriting expert;

(ii) the Court can compare the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature available on records; and

(iii) the signature could be proved by any other means of oral evidence or other circumstances

11. In this case, no doubt, the plaintiff despite the denial by the defendant, had not cared to send the document to an expert and on which reason the trial Court dismissed the suit. However, the Lower Appellate Court had compared the signature by itself with that of the signatures available on record th