The burden of proof in establishing the authenticity of a promissory note lies with the defendant, and proper evidence is required to disprove the same.

P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.

1. The defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S. No. 829 of 1995 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruppur for recovery of money due on a promissory note dated 20.12.1992 allegedly executed by Balasubramanian, the father of the appellant herein, in favour of the respondent herein for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for value received. As the borrower Balasubramanian died after the execution of the promissory note and his son, the appellant herein, got his properties under a will left by him, the suit came to be filed by the respondent herein against the appellant for the recovery of the amount due under the promissory note from out of the properties he got under the will of his father.

2. The appellant/defendant took a plea that the suit promissory was not genuine and his father did not borrow the amount alleged in the plaint under the suit promissory note. It was also contended that a promissory note should have been signed by the scribe and also attested by two witnesses and that since the suit promissory note does not contain the signature of any person other than the scribe, the suit promissory note was not valid. It was also contended by the appellant/defendant in his written statement that there was no necessity for his father to make borrowal under the suit promissory note; that the signature and thumb impression found in the suit promissory note were not that of his father and that they were forged and the suit promissory note had been fabricated with forged signature and thumb impression.

3. Based on the above pleadings, the learned trial judge framed three issues which are as follows:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment and decree against the defendant as prayed for in the suit?

2. Is not the signature found in the promissory note that of the father of the defendant? Whether the signature is forged? Whether it is a false document? Whether the thumb impression found therein is not that of the father of the defendant?

3. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

4. The parties went for trial based on the above said issues, in which, two witnesses were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and four documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A4 on the side of the respondent herein/plaintiff and two witnesses were examined as DWs.1 and 2 and one document was marked as Ex.B1 on the side of the appellant herein/defendant.

5. The learned trial judge, on an appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the suit claim was proved by the respondent herein/plaintiff, whereas the appellant herein/defendant failed to prove his defence plea that the suit promissory note was a false and fabricated document. Based on the said finding, the learned trial judge granted a decree against the appellant herein/defendant as prayed for in the suit by a judgment and decree dated 30.11.1999.

6. As against the decree of the trial court dated 30.11.1999, the appellant herein/ defendant preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 178 of 2000 on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore. The same was made over to the First Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore for disposal according to law. The learned First Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, on re-appreciation of evidence, concurred with the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 21.01.2003.

7. As against the said decree of the lower appellate court confirming the decree passed by the trial court, the appellant herein has brought-forth the present second appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of second appeal.

8. The second appeal has been admitted identifying the following to be the substantial question of law involved in the second appeal:

Whether non-examination of the signature of the executant of Ex.P1 (Pronote) by the finger print expert would affect his case, when the other circumstances are in favour o