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