The plaintiff must prove the due execution of a promissory note, which gives rise to a legal presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The defendants must then disprove this presumption by setting up a probable defense.

In the Trial Court defendant won the case and in the first appellate Court plaintiff won the case. In this Court now, necessarily the defendants have become the appellants.

2. The plaintiff laid up the suit on the foot of Ex.A.1 promissory note dated 21.12.2012 for the recovery of principal and interest. The filing of the suit was preceded by issuance of Ex.A.2 notice and it was replied under Ex.A3 by the defendant. The second defendant filed written statement resisting the suit pleading that they have not executed the promissory note and the suit is due to the enmity between the both sides in connection with plaintiffs having filed the rent control petition in RCO.No.450 of 2000, as against Murugan, who is the brother of the plaintiff.

3. In the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and the attester Sankar as P.W.2 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B8.

4. The trial Court appreciating the evidence of both entertained doubts as to the case of the plaintiff, noticed a motive between the both sides and came to the conclusion that the execution of Ex.A1 has not been proved and thus dismissed the suit.

5. The plaintiff went in appeal to the next Court/Principal District Court, Dindigul by filing A.S.No.6 of 2009, the first appellate Court viewed the matter from different perspective and reappraised the evidence and analysed the case of the plaintiff and the case of the defendants in every aspects, ultimately accepted the case of the plaintiff and rejected the case of the defendants and thus decreed the suit.

6. In the circumstances, the defendants have directed the second appeal.

7. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the then Learned Brother framed the following substantial questions of law:

"Whether the conclusions reached by the first Appellate Court on the basis that the defendants have not specifically denied the execution of the suit promissory notes and their signatures therein is sustainable in law in view of the contents in Ex.A.4 para 4 and 5 of written statement and para 2 of the counter affidavit in I.A.No.65 of 2005?

B) Whether the first appellate Court is correct and justified in shifting the burden of proof on the defendants merely by relying upon the interested, vague and inconsistent testimony of P.W.2 and also by ignoring the specific admissions of P.W.1? And

C) Is the conclusions reached and findings rendered by the First appellate Court by misreading of pleadings and evidence in respect of the residence of first defendant and on the basis of its own assumptions of some defences which have not been putforth by the defendants, and on the basis of irrelevant facts and considerations is sustainable in law and warranting interference under S.100 Civil Procedure Code."

8. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that in the written statement there is specific denial of signatures in their promissory note, so also in their reply notice, so also in the evidence. In such circumstances, the plaintiff have to prove that the signatures in Ex.A.1 is that of the defendants.

9. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the plaintiff's brother Murugan is running a workshop in the property belonging to the defendants and to evict him a rent control petition has been filed and there is enmity between both sides. In such circumstances, it would be a concocted story that the defendants had borrowed and executed Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants would further contend that the plaintiff worked under his brother Murugan in the very same work shop. There was unholistic alliance between both the brothers to wreck their vengeance as against the defendants because they have initiated the eviction action against Murugan.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the first defendant once for all left Dindigul, became