JUDGMENT :

The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff/Periyanayakam filed O.S.No.442 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur for recovering a sum of Rs.1,29,850/- with interest from the appellant herein.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that on 05.11.2000, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.97,000/- from her and executed the suit pro-note Ex.A.1. Since even after repeated demands, the amount was not repaid, the suit came to be laid.

3. The case of the defendant was that the son of the plaintiff Thiru. Amalraj and the defendant were known to each other for quite a few years and that there were financial transactions between them. A complaint was given by the husband of the plaintiff before the Economic Offences Wing, Sivagangai and a compromise was also arrived at in the police station. The defendant would state that certain amounts were paid. Thereafter, one more complaint was given before the Economic Offences Wing, Madurai. The defendant was made to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the son of the plaintiff who also issued receipt dated 04.11.2000 in full quit. After receiving the sum of Rs.60,000/-, in order to close the case against the defendant, the plaintiff's son Amalraj as well as the plaintiff's husband Antony gave two separate letters addressed to the Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Sivagangai. The promissory note dated 05.11.2000 was coercively obtained from the defendant in the name of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.97,000/-. According to the defendant, there was no passing of consideration in respect of the suit pronote. He denied that there was also any borrowal on 05.11.2000.

4. The learned trial Judge framed the issue as to whether the suit pronote was a fabricated document and whether the plaintiff was entitled to receive the suit amount from the defendant. The plaintiff examined herself as witness and marked the suit pro-note Ex.A.1. The defendant examined himself as D.W. 1. One Ashokan, the Inspector of Police, EOW Madurai, was examined as D.W.2 and through him, Court exhibit X1 was marked. Through D.W.1, Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 were marked. The learned trial Judge, by the Judgment dated 20.02.2007, decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed A.S.No.41 of 2007 before the District Court, karur. By Judgment and Decree, dated 11.03.2008, the appeal was dismissed. Challenging the same, this second appeal was filed. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(1) Whether the suit pro-note is supported by consideration?

(2) Whether the suit pro-note had been executed in the manner narrated in the plaint ?

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant took me through the grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds and submitted that the defendant had effectively rebutted the presumption raised against him under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He contended that the version projected by the plaintiff was inherently improbable. He wanted this Court to reverse the Judgment of the Courts below by answering the substantial questions of law in his favour.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that though the second appeal has been admitted and the substantial questions of law has been framed, in effect, the appellant is only canvassing a question of fact. The suit was laid on the strength of Ex.A.1. The case of the defendant was that it was not a genuine document. The Courts below have concurrently found that Ex.A.1-pro-note is a genuine document. Exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C., this Court ought not to interfere with such a concurrent finding of the fact. He would point out that Ex.A.1-pro-note was admittedly signed by the defendant. The execution of the suit pro-note is beyond dispute. In fact, he would also state that the body of the pro-note was also filled up only by the defendant. In the written stateme