The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the burden of proof, comparison of signatures, and the award of interest in a promissory note case.

P.R. Shivakumar, J.

Defendant in the original suit in O.S. No. 119 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankari is the appellant in the second appeal.

2. The respondent herein filed the above said suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note dated 25.6.1995 alleged to have been executed by the appellant herein on his borrowing a sum of Rs. 35,000/- agreeing to repay the same together with an interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The suit was resisted by the appellant herein contending that there was no loan transaction between himself and the respondent herein and the respondent herein/plaintiff was a stranger to him and he was not known to him and that the suit promissory note was a rank forgery. In order to prove his case, the respondent herein/plaintiff, besides examining himself as PW1, examined one Udayashankar, the scribe of the suit promissory note as PW2. The suit promissory note dated 25.6.1995 was produced as Ex.A1. Except Ex.A1, no other document was produced on either side. The appellant herein/defendant appeared as sole witness (DW1) on his side. The learned Trial Judge, at the end of trial, considered the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced on both sides, and upon such consideration, came to the conclusion that the suit promissory note was not genuine and dismissed the suit with cost by judgment and decree dated 6.9.2000. The said decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit was challenged before the learned appellate Judge viz., the Principal District Judge, Namakkal in A.S.No.119 of 2004. The learned lower appellate Judge, after hearing both sides, re-appraised the evidence and on such re-appreciation, reversed the finding of the Trial Court regarding the proof of the suit promissory note and held that the suit promissory note was proved to be genuine. Consequently, the lower appellate Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the Trial Court by which the suit had been dismissed and decreed the suit as prayed for with cost and subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of decree and further interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. Challenging the said decree passed by the lower appellate court on 28.2.2006, the second appeal has been filed on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of second appeal.

3. The second appeal came to be admitted identifying the following questions to be substantial questions of law involved in the second appeal:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proving the execution of Ex.A1?

(2) Whether the first appellate court is correct, in law, in decreeing the suit by comparing the signature found in the vakalat and written statement which came into existence long after the suit document particularly, when such mode of comparison is against the law laid down in 2006(2) CTC 201 and 2003 (1) CLJ 637?

(3) Whether the procedure adopted by the first appellate court under section 73 of the Evidence Act is correct in law especially when the petition filed by the plaintiff seeking opinion of the handwriting expert under section 45 of the Evidence Act has been rejected in I.A. No.14 of 2006 and the said mode of comparison by naked eye is not permissible in law as held in (1979) 2 SCC 158? The additional substantial question of law that arises for consideration and framed now is as under:-

(1) Whether the decree passed by the lower appellate court is not in conformity with section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure warranting interference by this court?

4. The arguments advanced by Mr. G. Arul Murugan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Krishnaprasad, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials available on record are also perused.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the lower appellate court committed an error in assisting the respondent herein/plaintiff in proving the execution of the suit promis