JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved over the finding of the first appellate Court reversing the decree and judgment of the trial Court, the present second appeal has been filed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.

3. This appeal is pending from the year 2012 under the ‘admission caption’.

4. Heard Mr.R.Kumaravel, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The brief facts of the plaintiff case is as follows :

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 02.03.2005 and executed a promissory note agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Thereafter, despite repeated reminders, the defendant failed to repay the principal as well as the interest. Therefore, a legal notice has been issued, which was also acknowledged by the defendant. Even then, no payment has been made. Hence, the suit.

6. The brief contention of the defendant is as follows :

The defendant, denying the execution of the promissory note, taken a specific contention that he has not signed the promissory note and has not put his thumb impression in the promissory note. P.W.2 is a stranger to the defendant and the promissory note has been fabricated on the ground that the defendant had failed to sell his land to the plaintiff. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. The trial Court framed following issues for consideration in the suit :

1. Whether the promissory note is genuine, valid and supported by consideration?

2. To what relief?

8. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 were marked and on the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. The trial Court considering the materials and evidence has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not taken the aid of the expert in proving the signature of the defendant and further, there are inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W.1 and held that promissory note has not been proved as per law and dismissed the suit. As against the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court, considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the pleadings of the respective parties, has set aside the judgment of the trial court and thereby, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. As against which, the present appeal came to be filed.

9. Mr.R.Kumaravel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the first appellate Court has not appreciated the facts properly and infact, placed the burden on the defendant to rebut the evidence, which is not according to law. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is not properly appreciated by the first appellate Court. Therefore, the first appellate Court has come to the erroneous conclusion in decreeing the suit. Hence, submitted that there is substantial question of law involved in the appeal and prayed for allowing the appeal.

10. The learned Counsel, Mr.P.Valliappan, appearing for the respondent has contended that admittedly the plaintiff had proved the execution of the promissory note. Therefore, the statutory presumption available under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act squarely attracts to the facts of the case. Except denying the signature, the defendant has not discharged his burden by bringing any circumstance to rebut the legal presumption attached to Ex.A.1 promissory note. The first appellate Court has rightly decided the issue and appreciated the facts properly. Hence, submitted that there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

11. I have perused the entire materials available on record. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- to meet out his family expenses and executed a promissory note on 02.03.2005 agreeing to repay the principal with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Despite repeated demands and legal