In this second appeal, challenge is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 18.09.2002 passed in A.S.No.101 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Coimbatore, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 25.10.1999 passed in O.S.No.329 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

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 on 20.03.1991, the defendant executed a promissory note for Rs.30,000/- for valuable consideration at Perur Village, Coimbatore Taluk in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum on demand and on 20.09.1991, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.3,600/- towards interest for 6 months ending 20.09.1991 and failed to pay the amount thereafter in spite of repeated requests and demands and the plaintiff has learnt that the defendant had entered into an agreement with one Ayyasamy S/o Subbayya Naidu of Perur village to execute a sale in his favour in respect of her immovable properties with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against her. On 13.01.1994, the plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice calling upon her to discharge the debt and despite the same, the defendant refused to receive the said notice and also not evinced any interest to repay the borrowed sum 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 the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the averments in paras 1 to 5 of the plaint are false and the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and the promissory note referred to in the plaint is a rank forgery and the alleged payment as claimed in para - 2 of the plaint is also false and misleading and there is no legal necessity for the defendant to pay any amount to the plaintiff, as she had not borrowed any sum from the plaintiff. The defendant never received any notice as claimed in the plaint and the plaintiff is a total stranger to the defendant and at the instigation of one Ayyasamy, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit to harass the defendant and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the defendant, DW1 was examined and no document has been 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 decree the suit as prayed for. On appeal, the first appellate Court, on an appreciation of the materials placed on record and hearing the submissions, was pleased to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and by way of allowing the appeal preferred by the defendant, dismissed the suit laid by the plaintiff. Aggrieved over 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 :

“(i) Whether any Court of law, when a signature in document is disputed, can compare the signature in the disputed document with a document containing admitted signature that has come into existence subsequent to that document and come to a conclusion that the signature in the disputed document differs from the admitted document referred to above?

(ii) In other words are not the Courts of law bound to compare, when there is a dispute regarding the signature in a document, the signature in the disputed document only with reference to admitted documents containing signature which has come into existence anterior in point of time of the disputed documents?”

9. In brief, according to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from her on 20.03.199