JUDGMENT :

V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.

1. The second appeal is directed against the concurrent Judgments and decrees, passed in O.S. No. 171 of 2004 by the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul and in A.S. No. 23 of 2012, passed by the Additional District Court, Dindigul.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their own ranking as before the Trial Court.

3. The respondents herein as plaintiffs 2 to 4 have instituted a suit in O.S. No. 171 of 2004 on the file of the trial Court for recovery of money of a sum of Rs. 3,40,750/- along with interest based on a pro-note, dated 28.05.2001, wherein, the appellant has been shown as the defendant.

4. In the plaint, it is averred that the defendant approached the deceased first plaintiff on 28.05.2001 and obtained a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 1% for a sum of Rs. 100/- per month, for his agricultural expenses and executed a promissory note on the same day. Due to non-payment of the said amount, the first plaintiff has sent a legal notice on 16.12.2002. Though the defendant had received the notice, he had not repaid the amount. Hence, the suit. Pending suit the first plaintiff died and his legal heirs were impleaded as plaintiffs 2 to 4.

5. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendant, it is averred that the defendant never borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the plaintiff nor executed the suit promissory note dated 28.05.2001. The defendant's son Sakthivel had borrowed loan from Pavunan @ Palanisamy and others and as he could not repay the amount and he filed an insolvency petition in I.A. No. 1 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dindigul. Due to the enmity, at 7.30 p.m. on 07.02.2002, Pavunan @ Palanisamy and two others kidnapped the defendant in a Car and threatened him with dire consequences and forcibly obtained his signature and left thumb impression (LTI) in many blank papers and stamp papers and snatched away Rs. 10,000/- from him. Further, the defendant lodged a complaint before the Oddanchatram Police Station and a case has been registered against Pavunan @ Palanisamy and two others. So the defendant issued a warning notice in Daily Thanthi on 08.02.2002. The defendant has filed a suit in O.S. No. 171 of 2004 against three persons for declaration that those persons are not entitled to trump up instrument on the blank papers and stamp papers bearing left thumb impression and the signatures of the defendant obtained by coercion and intimidation. The first plaintiff being the co-brother of Pavunan @ Palanisamy has been set up to institute a suit on the basis of the forged suit promissory note. The suit promissory note is not supported by any consideration. There is no cause of action for filing the suit. The suit is devoid of merits and prayed for dismissal of the same.

6. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs, PW-1 to PW-3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the defendant, one Palanisay was examined as DW-1 and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked.

7. On the basis of the rival pleadings on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence, has decreed the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,40,750/- with 6% per annum from the date of plaint, till the date of realization for the principal amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-.

8. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant as appellant, had filed an Appeal Suit in A.S. No. 23 of 2012. The first appellate Court, after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record, has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

9. Challenging the said concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, the present Second Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the defendant as appellant.

10. Heard the learned counsel for