1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2001 made in A.S. No. 140 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2001 made in O.S. No. 232 of 1999 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam.

2. 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. 30,000/- from her and in evidence there of executed a promissory note dated 17.11.1996, agreeing to pay the borrowed sum with interest at 12% per annum and inasmuch as the defendant did not pay the amount, despite several demands, according to the plaintiff, she issued a lawyer's notice on 14.08.1999 and the defendant, on the receipt of the same, issued a reply on 19.08.1999 containing untenable allegations and hence according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit for recovery of money.

5. The case of the defendant in brief is that he did not receive the suit amount from the plaintiff on 17.11.1996 as claimed in the plaint and also did not execute any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff in evidence of the above said alleged borrowal and the suit promissory note is a forged document, and with a view to make an unlawful gain and grab the properties of the defendant, the plaintiff in collusion with others had forged the promissory note and laid the suit falsely against the plaintiff and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined. Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the defendant, DW-1 was examined. Exs.B1 to B11 were marked.

7. The Courts below, on an appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made were pleased to accept the plaintiff's case and accordingly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved over 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 plaintiff has discharged the burden of proving Ex.A1?

(2) Whether the plaintiff has established his case as per the law laid down in AIR 1987 AP 139 (FB)?

(3) Whether law findings of the Courts below in decreeing the suit by comparing the suit promissory note with vakalath and written statement, without assistance of the scientific expert in a case for defence of forgery is correct in law in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in AIR 1979 SC 14 and AIR 1996 SC 1140?

9. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit amount, from the defendant on the basis of a promissory note. The promissory note in question has been marked as Ex.A1. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed the sum of Rs. 30,000/- from her and in evidence there of had executed Ex.A1 promissory note, promising to repay the borrowed sum with interest at 12% per annum. Further, according to the plaintiff, despite several demands, inasmuch as the defendant had failed to pay the borrowed sum, she has been necessitated to levy the suit against the defendant. The defendant has set out the defence contending that he did not borrow any sum from the plaintiff on 17.11.1996, as claimed and also did not execute the suit promissory note Ex.A1 in evidence of the alleged borrowal and according to the defendant with a view to grab his properties, the plaintiff along with her henchmen fabricated the suit promissory note and laid the suit falsely and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. Inasmuch as the defendant has set out the defence contending that the suit promissory note is a forged document and had not received any sum from the plaintiff either the way of the said promissory note or otherwise on 17.11.1996 as put forth in plaint, it is seen that the duty is heavily cast upo