JUDGMENT :

The Second Appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2020 passed A.S.No.28 of 2017 by the learned I Additional District and Session Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.72 of 2016 dated 07.03.2017 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

2. Respondent filed the suit for recovery of sum of Rs.1,35,667/- from the Appellant with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of Plaint till the date of Decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization and for costs.

3. The brief case of the Respondent is that Appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Plaintiff on 31.03.2013 for his family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the Respondent, undertaking to repay the principal amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Appellant has not paid any amount either towards principal or interest, despite repeated oral demand and inspite of causing a legal notice dated 02.03.2016. Appellant received the notice, but did not send any reply, no payment was also made. Therefore, Suit was filed.

4. Appellant filed written statement denying borrowal of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Plaintiff on 31.03.2013 and execution of promissory note. The specific case of the Appellant is that Appellant has no acquiescence with the Respondent. The so called promissory note is a fabricated and forged one. Appellant lodged complaint on 18.03.2016 before the Inspector of Police at Reddichavadi Police Station against Respondent and his brother Rajendra Prasad. The police after elaborate enquiry warned the Respondent. Appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from Respondent's brother Rajendra Prasad and executed a promissory note on the even date, agreeing to repay the same with interest. The matter was amicably settled before Lok Adalat on 29.01.2015 at Cuddalore in Case No.49/2014. Rajendra Prasad has created forged and fabricated promissory note and the same was filed by the Respondent. Appellant sent reply dated 30.03.2016 to the notice dated 02.03.2016. The suit was illegally filed. Therefore, Respondent is not entitled for any relief.

5. On the basis of this pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :

(i)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount with subsequent interest?

(ii) What relief the Plaintiff is entitled to? Following additional issues also framed by the trial Court:

(i) Whether the suit pronote is a forged one?

6. During the trial, PW1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the Respondent/Plaintiff and DW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to B8 were marked on the side of the Appellant/Defendant.

7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge found that the Appellant had admitted the signature in Ex.A1, promissory note and the plea of forgery was not true. Therefore, found that the suit transaction was true and decreed the suit. Appellant preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.28 of 2017. The learned Appellate Judge has gone through the evidence, considered the submissions of the parties, perused the judgment of the trial Court and ultimately came to the conclusion that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court, warranting interference. In this view of the matter, learned first Appellate Judge confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the Appeal. Challenging the judgment of the first Appellate Court, Appellant has preferred the Second Appeal before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is specific pleading in the written statement that Appellant has no acquaintance with the Respondent and never borrowed any amount from the Respondent. The fact of the matter is that Appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from Respondent's brother Rajendra Prasad and blank promissory note was given to Rajendra Prasad, at the time of borrowal. It is now used for filing suit in the name of Respondent. In this regard,