JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 13.01.2020 made in A.S.No.9 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Sankari, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2014 made in O.S.No.303 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sankari.)

1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, in A.S.No.9 of 2014 dated 13.01.2020 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Sankari in O.S.No.303 of 2004 dated 10.06.2014.

2. Respondent filed the suit on the basis of a promissory note for recovery of a sum of Rs.75,330/- with subsequent interest. The case of the respondent is that the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.54,000/- from the respondent on 25.03.2002 to meet his urgent business and family expenses. He executed a promissory note in favour of the respondent promising to repay the amount with interest at 18% per annum either to the respondent or his order on demand. Despite several demands personally made to the appellant, he has not chosen to repay the amount either towards principal or interest. Respondent caused a legal notice to the appellant on 18.11.2003 asking him to pay the amount. Appellant refused to receive the notice. Therefore, this suit.

3. Appellant filed written statement denying the borrowal and execution of promissory note. It is submitted that the address of the respondent is not correct. The alleged borrowal of Rs.54,000/- on 25.03.2002 and execution of promissory note are specifically denied. It is further said that there in no necessity for the appellant to borrow from the respondent. There is a pathway dispute between the appellant and respondent and as a result of this enmity, a false complaint was given in Komarapalayam police station by the respondent against the appellant. Respondent openly challenged that he would teach a lesson to the appellant. The signature and thumb impression in the promissory note are not that of the appellant. Promissory note is false and fabricated one. It is created with a view to take revenge on the appellant, with the help of supporters of the respondent. There is no cause of action for the suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-

1) Whether the suit promissory note is true and executed for valid consideration?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the amount?

3) To what relief?

5. During the trial, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of respondent/plaintiff. DW.1 and DW.2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of appellant/defendant. Apart from these documents, ExsX1 to X3 were also marked.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Judge found, on comparison of the disputed signature in the promissory note with the admitted signatures of the appellant in Exs.X1 to X3 and deposition, came to the conclusion that the signature in Ex.A1 promissory note is the signature of the appellant. He also found that the suit loan transaction was reflected in the Income Tax Return –Ex.A4 of the respondent. That apart, learned trial Judge also found that refusing to receive the pre-suit notice and taking a defence that the suit promissory note is a forged promissory note, without actually verifying the suit promissory note in the Court, are detrimental to the case of the appellant. Finally concluded that respondent has satisfactorily proved the borrowal of Rs.54,000/- by the appellant from the respondent through the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, accepted the case of the respondent and decreed the suit. Appellant filed appeal against the judgment of learned trial Judge. The learned first appellate Judge has also considered the issue raised before the trial Court with regard to denial of execution of promissory note and concurred with the