The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to seek expert opinion to establish the authenticity of a promissory note under Section 73 of the Evidence Act.

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2001 passed in A.S.No.234 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Erode reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2000 passed in O.S.No.253 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram.

2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court.

3. Suit for recovery of money.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.12.1994 and in evidence there of executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the borrowed sum with interest there on as recited in the promissory note and thereafter despite several demands and issuance of legal notice as such, the defendant sent a reply setting out a false case repudiating the entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the amount under the promissory note., hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the defendant in brief is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and he had not received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.12.1994 and did not execute the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff in evidence there of, as the defendant has no necessity to borrow the amount from the plaintiff for business purposes, since the defendant was working as Headmaster in Padapalli village, Oothangarai Taluk and the defendant does not know the plaintiff and there is no monetary transaction between the defendant and the plaintiff at any point of time and therefore the plaintiff would not have advanced the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant without any acquaintance on the basis of the promissory note and to the notice sent by the plaintiff, the defendant sent a reply containing true facts and on verification, the defendant has come to know that the plaintiff is an associate of one K.Muthusamy, partner of Sri.Venkateshwara Auto Finance and the said Muthusamy had laid the suit against the defendant's son in O.S.No.66 of 1996 in the name of Chinnasamy and the said suit had been settled and a compromise decree has been passed and at the time of the settlement, it had been agreed that they would return the blank and stamp papers in which, defendant's signatures had been obtained and however the same had not been returned, despite several requests and therefore, according to the defendant, the said Muthusamy had instigated the plaintiff to institute the false suit against the defendant as if he had borrowed the suit amount from the plaintiff and executed the promissory note. The suit promissory note is a fabricated document and not executed by the defendant and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.B1 to B8 were marked.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial court was pleased to accept the plaintiff's case and decreed the suit as prayed for. On appeal, the first appellate court was pleased to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and by way of laying the appeal preferred by the defendant, dismissed the suit laid by the plaintiff. Challenging the same, the present second appeal has been preferred.

8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration.

(1) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in holding that under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, Expert opinion is compulsorily to be obtained before reaching conclusions and deciding the issue?

(2) Whether the lower appellate Court has misdirected itself by solely relying on projecting a false plea by the defendant on the basis of Exhibits B-1 to B-7 which are totally unconnected with the case as those docu