1. Challenge in this second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1998 passed in A.S.No.301 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi and reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1995 passed in O.S.No.42 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.

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.11,000/- from the plaintiff on 27.12.1989 agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 12% per annum and in evidence of the said borrowal, executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and despite several requests, the defendant had not repaid the said amount as promised and as the court was closed from 25.12.1992 to 03.01.1993, on account of vacation, the suit is not barred by time and hence the suit for recovery of money.

5. The case of the defendant in brief is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the defendant had been having money transactions with the plaintiff's father Duraisamy Naidu since 1969 onwards and he used to obtain promissory note in the name of his wife Chennammal and after the discharge of the borrowed sum, he would obtain promissory note for the balance amount and accordingly, in respect of the money transactions which the defendant had with Duraisamy Naidu, on verification, it was found that a sum of Rs.11,200/- was due to be paid by the defendant as on September 1989 and accordingly as per the village practice, two promissory notes were obtained from the defendant, one for sum of Rs.11,000/- in the name of the plaintiff and another for a sum of Rs.11,400/- in the name of the plaintiff's brother on the same date, however, bearing different dates and the said promissory notes had been duly discharged by the defendant during August 1992 itself and it is represented to the defendant that promissory notes had been misplaced and assured of the return of the same and accordingly the defendant had also not secured the discharged promissory notes and the promissory note executed in the name of the plaintiff was dated 11.09.1989 and the plaintiff had materially altered the same as dated 27.12.1989 to save the suit claim on the point of limitation. The plaintiff had materially altered the above said date and month in the promissory note without the knowledge of the defendant and his consent and hence, on account of the said above material alterations made in the promissory note, the same had been rendered void and on account of the pathway dispute between the plaintiff's clerk and the defendant, the present suit has come to be laid after making material alterations in the promissory note and to the notice sent by the plaintiff, suitable reply has been given and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.W's1 and 2 were examined. Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined. Ex.B1 was 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 dismiss the suit laid by the plaintiff. On appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the first appellate court, on an reappreciation of the materials placed, was pleased to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, and by way of allowing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, decreed the suit as prayed for. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been laid.

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 had not committed serious error in misplacing the burden of proof on the appellant to establish the pronote is not materially altered?

2. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in not dismissing the suit when the date and month in the document