The defendants who have lost their case both before the trial Court as well as before the first appellate Court are the appellants herein.

2. Plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of money based on Ex.A.1 promissory note, stated to have been executed by the defendants in favour of Grace Mary, wife of plaintiff. She is no more. Plaintiff after obtaining an order in a succession O.P, sued the defendants. He had also issued Ex.A.4, suit notice to both. It was received by 2nd defendant under Ex.A.6, however, returned by 1st defendant under Ex.A.5. Thus, the suit.

3. The suit has been resisted by the defendants. Second respondent filed the written statement, which has been adopted by the first defendant. They pleaded complete ignorance about the identity of plaintiff's late wife. Suit promissory note is a rank forgery. It was forged by plaintiff, a fraud and a drug addict. The promissory note is afflicted with material alteration. This is the gist of their case.

4. The trial Court framed the issues. Tried the suit. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one Jeyachandran, attestor to Ex.A.1 as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to 10, while the second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and no document was marked on their side.

5. The trial Court appreciated the submissions of both sides and also adverted to the evidence adduced and concluded that the execution of suit promissory note has been established and it is not affected by any material alteration, defendants failed to rebut the legal presumption arose under Section 118 Negotiable Instruments Act and thus decreed the suit.

6. In the first appeal, in A.S.No.97 of 2010, preferred by the defendants, hearing both sides and re-appreciating the evidence the 1st appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed their appeal.

7. In the circumstance, the defendants have directed this Second Appeal.

8. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, my then learned Brother formulated the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the pro-note is forged, concocted or fabricated document and whether there is any material alteration in the said document?”

9. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that the defendants did not know who the plaintiff's wife is. The learned counsel contended that the plaintiff is a fraud. Due to prior enmity, to wreak vengeance, plaintiff manufactured Ex.A.1. The learned counsel contended that Ex.A.1 is fabricated. And it has material alteration also.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that the plaintiff's wife had passed away. After keeping quite for a considerable time, he initiated the proceedings for succession O.P. and the activities of the plaintiff in initiating the suit itself smelts a rat.

11. In making his comments on the judgments of the Courts below, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that those Courts having found that there is material alteration in the year and also in the Tamil year in Ex.A.1, they have failed to apply the correct position of law and have failed to hold that Ex.A.1 is unenforceable.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that falsity of the defence of the defendants as to their non-execution of Ex.A.1 is exposed by the admission of D.W.1 that they know her already by, looking at her in the photographs Ex.B.8 to B.10 showing 2nd defendant garlanding her at a function. Further, it is joint execution of Ex.A.1 by both the defendants. However, even inspite of receiving the suit notice under Ex.A.6, the 2nd defendant kept mum. But, he has came out with distortion and concoction only in his written statement and evidence. But, he was caught when he was cross-examined by the plaintiff.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent would further contend that there is no material question. Further, when P.W.2 was in the witness box no question was posed to him as to when this material alterat