The sufficiency of evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the requirement for substantial evidence to prove forgery in the absence of expert opinion.

Since a money decree has been passed in O.S.No.39 of 2005 by the Sub Court, Thoothukudi, as against the appellant/defendant and the same has been upheld by the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi, in A.S.No.12 of 2007, the appellant/defendant has directed this second appeal.

2. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit on a promissory note dated 19.02.2002, alleging that it was executed by the appellant/defendant for the principal sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, agreeing to repay it with interest and since the appellant/defendant had failed to repay the principal and the interest, he has filed the suit.

3. The suit has been resisted by the appellant/defendant by filing written statement contending that he did not borrow any money as alleged by the respondent/plaintiff and he did not execute any promissory note and his signature has been forged in the suit promissory note and thus, he is not liable to pay the suit amount.

4. The learned Sub Judge, Thoothukudi, referring to the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff (P.W.1) and P.W.2 and also the evidence of the appellant/defendant (D.W.1) and also comparing the signature of appellant/defendant found in written statement, and in his vakalat, with the signature found in Ex.A.1, came to the conclusion that the execution of the suit promissory note has been proved and decreed the suit.

5. The first Appellate Court, in view of the decision in Pattabirama Reddiar and another vs. Navaneetha Sundaram [2006(2) CTC 201], though not accepting the mode of comparison of the signatures, adopted by the trial Court, taking note of the evidence let in, agreed with the final conclusion of the learned Sub Judge, in decreeing the suit and dismissed the appeal.

6. In the circumstances, as stated at the outset, the appellant/ defendant has directed this second appeal.

7. For the purpose of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed:

"1. Whether the Courts below are correct in comparing the signature by naked eye by the Courts itself without getting an expert opinion in the light of the dictum laid down in 2005(2) MLJ 603, 2007(2) LW 450 and 2008(3) MLJ 897?

2. Whether the Courts below are correct in comparing the disputed signature with that of admitted signature of different periods?"

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that in law, comparing the signature by the Presiding Officer of the Court himself, is not the proper mode and the disputed signature should be compared with the admitted signature by an expert. However, the Trial Court has erred in comparing the signature by itself. This has not been properly viewed by the first Appellate Court. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would cite the decision of this Court in Chandran Udayar v. Kasivel [2008(3) MLJ 897].

9. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant also would contend that Ex.A-1-promissory note is of the year 2002 and the trial was taken up in 2006. It is common sense that by this time, there will be change in one's signature. Therefore, it is too dangerous to compare the signatures having a distance of five years.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that by sufficient evidence, the respondent/plaintiff has proved the execution of Ex.A.1. The respondent/plaintiff as P.W.1 and other attestor P.W.2-Marimuthu have spoken to about the execution of promissory note and passing of consideration. Further, D.W.1 also admitted the signature of the other attesting witness in Ex.A.1, viz., one Victor. Further, in having put up a plea that the promissory note is a forged one, the appellant/defendant would have taken steps for expert opinion and he did not do so. Further, at no point of time, the appellant/defendant has lodged a police complaint as against the respondent/plaintiff that his signature has been forged and Ex.A.1 is a forged one. Even in the decision cited by the l