The presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act can be invoked to establish the genuineness of a promissory note, and the burden lies on the defendant to rebut the presumption.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: The second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2007 passed in A.S.No.157 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Virudhachalam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.211 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Virudhachalam.)

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and decree dated 22.06.2007 passed in A.S.No.157 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.211 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Virudhachalam.

2. The defendant in O.S.No.211 of 2006 is the appellant in this second appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

4. Suit for recovery of money.

5. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- from him on 12.08.2005 and in evidence thereof, executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay a borrowed sum with interest as recited in the promissory note. Subsequent thereto, despite repeated demands and the issuance of the legal notice, the defendant has failed to repay the borrowed sum with interest to the plaintiff as promised by her and hence, according to the plaintiff, the suit has been laid by him against the defendant.

6. The defendant resisted the plaintiff’s suit contending that she has not borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- from the plaintiff on 12.08.2005 and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff as put forth in the plaint. According to the defendant, the plaintiff is running a money lending business and the defendant approached the plaintiff through M.Ramasamy Gounder in need of money to meet her urgent needs and accordingly, received a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiff on 24.08.2003 and agreed to repay the borrowed sum with interest and thereafter, the defendant had discharged the abovesaid borrowed sum with interest on 16.08.2005 and the plaintiff has recorded the abovesaid borrowal in the kutchayat note book maintained by him containing the signature of the defendant and however, to make unlawful gain, the plaintiff has fabricated the suit promissory note by making use of the defendant’s signature available in the kutchayat note book and in respect of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff, she issued a suitable reply and therefore, according to the defendant, the promissory note dated 12.08.2005 is a rank forgery document and the defendant is not liable to pay any sum to the plaintiff and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

7. In support of the plaintiff’s case, PWs1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the defendant, DW1 was examined and no document has been marked.

8. On an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions put forth by them, the Courts below were pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Impugning the judgment and decree of the Courts below, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.

9. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff on the basis of the promissory note. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- on 12.08.2005 and in evidence thereof, executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the borrowed sum with interest as recited in the suit promissory note and according to the plaintiff, thereafter, despite several demands and the issuance of the legal notice, the defendant has not repaid the borrowed sum as promised by her and hence, the need for the suit. The suit promissory note has been marked as Ex.A1, the legal notice has been marked as Ex.A2, the acknowledgment card received from the defendant has been marked as Ex.A3 and the reply notice sent by the defendant has been marked as Ex.A4.

10. The