This appeal present a zigzag trend of decision in the trial Court and in the First Appellate Court.

2. Before the First Appellate Court, the Plaintiff was the appellant. Before us, the defendant is the appellant.

3. Parties are same before us but, their roles are changed.

4. The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.117 of 2006 in the court of District Munsif, Peirakulam on the footing of Ex.A1, dated 13.09.2003, for the recovery of principal sum of Rs.70,000/- together with accrued interest at the agreed rate viz., 12%, totally Rs.94,960/-

5. The defendant resisted the said claim by filing a written statement. Her, principal defence is denial of execution of Ex.A1, receipt of any amount under such a document. She also alleged malpractice practiced upon her.

6. In these set of pleadings, issues were settled. Evidence was recorded before the trial Court. Plaintiff / Bala @ Palaniammal and scribe to Ex.A1 Rajamanikkam were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2, while the defendant Rani gave rebuttal evidence as D.W.1 and also marked Exs.B1 to B3.

7. The trial Court considered the rival submissions, appreciated the evidence. It was of the view that the disputed signature in Ex.A1