JUDGMENT :

The above Second Appeal arises against the reversing Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.12 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Bhavani, in and by which the learned Subordinate Judge had reversed the Judgment and Decree of the Principal District Munsif, Bhavani in O.S.No.194 of 2006.

2. The appellant herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.194 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Bhavani for recovery of a sum of Rs.62,320/- together with subsequent interest. The said amounts were due under a promissory note dated 18.09.2003 executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant. On 18.09.2003, the respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the appellant for meeting his urgent business and family needs.

3. It is the case of the appellant that despite repeated demands in person there was no attempt on the part of the respondent to clear his dues which has constrained the appellant to issue a legal notice dated 29.05.2006 demanding the repayment of the amounts due under the promissory note. Despite receipt of the notice, the payment had not been made and therefore the appellant had filed the suit in question.

4. On entering appearance in the suit, the respondent had filed a written statement inter alia denying the execution of the promissory note as well as the receipt of the money. The respondent would further submit that in the legal notice dated 29.05.2006 the description of the appellant had been wrongly given and the description of the person who was stated to have given the loan was one A.M.Nallasamy the son of Marappa Gounder and the village was shown as Koundhambadi Village.

5. The respondent would submit that though they had sent a reply notice refuting the allegations contained therein and the fact that they did not know the person who has been described in the notice there is no reference to the said reply notice in the plaint and therefore the appellant has come forward with the false case and the suit deserves to be dismissed.

6. The respondent would submit that he has not received any amount from the appellant or the person named in the legal notice dated 18.09.2003 and has not executed the promissory note as security for the loan. The respondent would submit that after receipt of the notice he had made enquiry about the appellant and he came to know that he was a money lender by avocation and that he was in the habit of cheating persons and usurping their properties. Therefore, he sought for the dismissal of the suit.

7. The appellant has examined himself as P.W.1 and has examined one Dhuraiyappan who was the Scribe of the suit promissory note, Ex.A.1 as P.W.2 and Murugaraj one of the witness in Ex.A.1 as P.W.3. The appellant had marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 in support of his case. The respondent had only adduced oral evidence as D.W.1 and had not let in any documentary evidence.

8. The learned Judge after considering the evidence on record decreed the suit. The Principal District Munsif, Bhavani has relied upon the evidence of P.W.3 to come to the conclusion that the respondent has executed the promissory note and borrowed money from the appellant. However, by an oversight the name of P.W.3 has been shown as Shakthivel and not Murugaraj. The learned Judge has also considered discrepancy in the evidence of D.W.1 who would state that he knew nothing about the appellant and only after enquiry he had come to know who the appellant was. However, he has not let in any evidence to show when the enquiry had been conducted and the learned Judge also took note of the fact that both the parties were from the very same village.

9. This Judgment and Decree was challenged by the respondent in A.S.No.12 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Bhavani. The Appellate Court by its Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.2008 has reversed the Judgment and Decree of the Principal District Munsif, Bhavani. The Appellate Court had disbelieved the evidence of P.W.3 on the ground that the signature found in Ex.A.1 appears