The burden of proof shifts to the defendant once the validity of a promissory note is established, and failure to provide evidence to support a claim of forgery can result in a ruling against the defendant.

1. The defendant in this second appeal has challenged the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2010 passed in A.S. No. 2 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2007 passed in O.S. No. 243 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.

2. The suit has been laid for recovery of money.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

On 29.12.1999, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the sum on demand by the plaintiff and in evidence thereof, executed the suit promissory note promising to repay the amount with interest at 12 % per annum. However, the defendant did not pay any amount as promised by him, either the principal or the interest and on account of the same, the plaintiff sent a legal notice calling upon the defendant to pay the amount due and though the defendant received the same, he did not respond nor made any payment to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

4. The case of the defendant, in brief, is as follows:

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. He did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff, as claimed, on 29.12.1999 and did not execute the suit promissory note promising to pay the principal sum with interest as detailed in the suit promissory note. The suit promissory not has been created by the plaintiff by forging the signature of the defendant. The defendant did not receive the legal notice dated 14.11.2002. One Karunakaran, who is a close relative of the defendant, borrowed a sum of Rs.13,000/- from the plaintiff on the basis of the surety given by the defendant in the year 1997 and the said Karunakaran delayed the repayment of the sum and instead of resorting to legal process, the plaintiff and others assaulted the said Karunakaran and when the same was questioned by the defendant, subsequently, on 01.2.2002, a panchayat was convened by the plaintiff, in which, the defendant also participated and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was given to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff and his men, taking a grudge on the defendant, created the suit promissory note and filed the false suit. Further, the suit claim is barred by time and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. In support of the plaintiff's case, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to 3 were marked. On the side of the defendant, DWs 1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B1 has been marked.

6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the trial Court was pleased to decree the suit as prayed for. The first appeal preferred by the defendant also failed. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant.

7. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- from him on 29.12.1999 and in evidence thereof executed the suit promissory note marked as Ex.A1 and agreed to repay the sum with interest on demand. According to the plaintiff, inasmuch as the defendant did not pay the amount in spite of several demands and also after the issuance of the legal notice, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for recovery of money.

8. The defendant has disputed the borrowal pleaded by the plaintiff and according to the defendant, the suit promissory note has been created by the plaintiff on account of some enmity between him and the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant that his close relative, by name, one Karunakaran had borrowed a sum of Rs.13,000/- from the plaintiff, on the assurance given by the defendant and on the failure of Karunakaran to repay the said amount , the plaintiff and his men assaulted him and when the defendant intervened, a panchayat was convened and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff, developing a grudge against the defendant, it is stated that he has created the suit promissory note by forging the de