The main legal point established is that the burden of proof regarding the execution of a promissory note shifts to the party denying it once their signature is admitted. The admissibility of evidence and the validity of comparing signatures were also key legal principles discussed.

This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2000, made in A.S.No.35 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, reversing the judgment and decree dated 05.10.1998, made in O.S.No.406 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.

2. The appellant is the defendant, who succeeded in the Trial Court, but lost in the first appellate Court.

3. Facts of the case:

(i) The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.406 of 1996 before the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, for recovery of money, based on the promissory note, dated 21.06.1992.

(ii) According to the respondent, the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- and executed a promissory note, dated 21.06.1992. The appellant did not pay the amount to the respondent. The counsel for the respondent sent a Telegram dated 18.09.1994 calling upon the appellant to repay the amounts. The appellant sent a reply dated 21.09.1994, denying the borrowal of a sum of Rs.15,000/- and execution of the promissory note. Hence, the respondent has filed the suit.

(iii) The appellant filed written statement denying the borrowal of the amount and execution of promissory note and contended that he is not liable to pay any amount to the respondent.

4. The Trial Court based on the pleadings, framed necessary issues.

5. Before the Trial Court, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and one Madasamy was examined as P.W.2 and marked three documents as Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of the appellant, the appellant examined himself as D.W.1 and he did not mark any document.

6. The learned I Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, comparing the signature in Ex.A.1 with the admitted signature in the Vakalath and written statement and also the signature in the deposition, came to the conclusion that the signature in Ex.A.1 differ from the admitted signature and held that Ex.A.1 was not executed by the appellant and that the scribe of the document was not examined and accordingly, dismissed the suit.

7. Against the said judgment and decree, dated 05.10.1998, the respondent has filed A.S.No.35 of 1999 before the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli and contended that the learned I Additional District Munsif erred in presuming that the appellant did not execute the promissory note. By the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the respondent has discharged the burden of proof with regard to the execution of Ex.A.1 - Promissory Note by the appellant. The appellant has not let in any acceptable evidence to rebut the presumption as contemplated under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and also contended that the non- examination of scribe is not fatal to the suit.

8. The appellant contended before the first appellate Court that by evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the respondent cannot prove the execution of the promissory note. The learned I Additional District Munsif, has considered the signature in Ex.A.1-Promissory Note and signature in the vakalath, written statement and deposition of the appellant and had given valid reason for his conclusion that the appellant has not executed Ex.A.1-Promissory Note.

9. The learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, framed necessary points for consideration.

10. The learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, judgment of the Trial Court, allowed the appeal on the ground that comparing admitted signature in vakalath, written statement and deposition will not lead to correct conclusion with regard to genuineness of signature of the appellant in Ex.A.1-Promissory Note. The learned Principal District Judge also held that even the Handwriting Expert may not be in a position to come to the correct conclusion as to the signature in the vakalath, written statement and deposition would be put in a conscious manner. Further, the learned Principal District Judge held that the appellant has taken inconsistent s