C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 663 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Villupuram, is the appellant. By judgment dated 08.07.1994, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, the defendants had filed A.S. No. 8 of 1995 before the Subordinate Court, Villupuram. By judgment dated 22.01.1997, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial court was set aside.

2. Challenging that judgment, the plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal. The second appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether Ex.A1 pronote is not supported by consideration?

2. Whether the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the F.I.R. are admissible as evidence in civil case?

3. Whether a decree can be passed on the admission of defendants made in the additional written statement?

O.S. No. 663 of 1992 (The Additional District Munsif Court, Villupuram):-

3. The plaintiff, K. Rasu had filed the suit against three defendants namely, K. Mayavan, M. Periyasamy and M. Ranganathan seeking a judgment and decree for payment of a sum of Rs. 6,342/- on the basis of a promissory note dated 06.07.1989 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and also for future interest and costs. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had borrowed a sum of Rs. 5000/- and had executed a promissory note for the same. The promissory note bore interest at 9% per annum. Claiming that the amount had not been paid, the suit had been filed for the relief stated above.

4. The second defendant had filed a written statement, which was adopted by the first and third defendants. In the said written statement, it was stated that Anjalidevi the sister of the second and third defendants was proposed to be given in marriage to one Thanigachalam. The plaintiff was the uncle of Thanigachalam. The plaintiff brought up Thanigachalam, since his father died. The plaintiff, as guardian of Thanigachalam, demanded five sovereign of gold and also a house to be built for Thanigachalam. The defendants did not have money to provide the same. Consequently, they executed a promissory note for Rs. 5,000/-. It had been specifically stated that no consideration had passed under the promissory note. Thereafter, Anjalidevi and Thanigachalam married, but, further demands for dowry were made. Anjalidevi was driven out of the house. She filed a police complaint with Valavanur Police Station on 05.12.1992 against Thanigachalam, the plaintiff herein and the wife of the plaintiff. Cr. No. 887/1992 was registered. It was specifically stated that the defendants did not borrow any amount. It was stated, the suit should be dismissed.

5. The first defendant filed an additional written statement. In the additional written statement, it was stated that the plaintiff had also taken possession of the properties of the defendants by illegal method. It was stated that the defendants could not cultivate the property. It was stated that the plaintiff had derived income from the property which measured 0.29.5 hectares in wet S. No. 475/1 and 0.13.5 hectares in wet S. No. 475/2, totally measuring 0.43.0 hectares in Arasamangalam Village, Villlupuram Taluk. It was stated that, the plaintiff was not entitled to any amount and that the suit should be dismissed.

6. The plaintiff filed a reply statement denying the allegation that he had taken possession of the lands of the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that the suit should be decreed.

7. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues and additional issues were framed:

1. Whether the promissory note was executed without consideration?

2. Whether the promissory note was executed in the circumstances stated by the defendants?

3. Whether the promissory note is valid?

4. Whether the suit is maintainable?

5. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled to?

The following additional issues were also framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the lands of the defendants?

2. Whether the amount under the promissory note had be