T. RAVINDRAN, J.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2002 passed in A.S. No. 23/2000 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.01.1999 passed in O.S. No. 210/1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.

2. Parties are referred to as per their 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. 15,000/- from him on 05.06.1994 and in evidence thereof, executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay with interest as recited therein and despite several demands thereafter, the defendant did not make any payment either towards principal or towards interest and the plaintiff issued a Lawyer's notice on 28.05.1997 and inasmuch as the defendant failed to pay the amount, 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 it is false to state that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in his favour on 05.06.1994, agreeing to repay the same with interest as recited therein and failed to repay the amount despite the several demands made by the plaintiff and the issuance of the lawyer's notice. According to the defendant, he did not borrow any sum from the plaintiff as claimed in the plaint and on the other hand, it is stated that the plaintiff conducted a chit transaction and the defendant is one of the members of the chit and in the eighth auction, the defendant became the successful bidder and accordingly, at that point of time, gave a blank promissory note to the plaintiff for security purpose for the remaining chit amount and thereafter, the defendant fully paid the Chit amount and asked the plaintiff for the return of the blank promissory note, but, the plaintiff did not return the same and on the other hand, threatened the defendant that he would fabricate and forge the same and file the suit against the defendant and hence, the defendant lodged a complaint against the plaintiff with the police and the plaintiff reported to the police that the promissory note has been misplaced and would search for the same and return it back to the defendant. However, the plaintiff failed to keep up his promise and instead, laid the suit against the defendant, on the basis of the above said promissory note. Further, according to the defendant, the blank promissory note given by him as security above stated bore only 20 paise Stamp and the defendant had written the date also below the signature on the stamp while signing and as the stamp was insufficient, the plaintiff had created another promissory note, affixing sufficient stamp and forging the defendant's signature and hence the signature in the promissory note is not that of the defendant and the defendant denies the execution of the promissory note in toto and the plaintiff has no cause of action to lay the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the defendant, DW-1 was examined, Exs.B1 to B10 were marked.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to accept the plaintiff's case and decreed the suit as prayed for. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has come to be laid.

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

1. Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that a defendant is not entitled to plead an inconsistent case overlooking that the said principle is applicable only to a plaintiff in a suit?

2. Whether the Courts below having found that the signatures of the execut