The plaintiff proved the execution of the pro-note and discharged the initial burden of proof, entitling them to a decree for recovery of money.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2018 passed in A.S.No.82 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2016 passed in O.S.No.95 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram.)

1. The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.95 of 2014 before the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.1,61,680/- based upon a pro-note dated 14.11.2011 said to have been executed by the defendant. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant filed A.S.No.82 of 2017 before the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli. The learned District Judge was pleased to reverse the judgement and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. As against the same, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal.

3. The plaintiff had contended that the defendant has received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- on 14.11.2011 to meet out his family expenses and executed a pro-note in the presence of attestors. Though several demands were made by the plaintiff, the defendant has neither paid the principal amount nor the interest amount. Hence, the present suit for recovery of money.

4. The defendant filed a written statement disputing his signature in the suit pro-note. The defendant had contended that the suit pro-note has been forged by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the plaintiff is a money lender and he has been giving loan to several persons in the village. According to the defendant, he is running a small grocery shop in the village and the plaintiff used to come to the said shop. Many persons who have borrowed loan from the plaintiff had not repaid the same and the defendant used to collect the interest and principal amount on behalf of the plaintiff from the said debtors. The debtors sometime refused to repay the amount alleging that the plaintiff has not given credit to their payments. At one point of time, the plaintiff started to impose the liability of recovering the said amount on the defendant from those persons who have defaulted in returning the loan amount. The defendant had refused to collect the loan amount on behalf of the plaintiff.

5. The defendant had further contended that the plaintiff had used the signature of the defendant found in the passbook and created the present pro-note. The said pro-note is a forged document and the defendant is not liable to pay any amount based upon the said pro-note.

6. The trial Court after perusal of Exhibit A1 pro-note and the deposition of PW1 and PW2 arrived at a finding that the plaintiff has proved the execution of Exhibit A1 suit pro-note. The trial Court found that the entire pro-note is in the handwriting of the defendant and he has signed over the revenue stamp also. The trial Court also found that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 has not been discredited by the cross examination of the defendant. When no enmity would be attributed to PW2, there is no reason to reject the evidence of PW2.

7. The trial Court further found that just because there was some enmity between the plaintiff and the defendant in some temple festival, the same will not make the pro-note as a forged document. The trial Court also found that though there are some minor discrepancies in the deposition between PW1 and PW2, they are intact on the material aspects. Based upon the said findings, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed.

8. The First Appellate Court has elaborately considered the deposition of PW1 and PW2 and has arrived at a finding that there are many discrepancies between the deposition of PW1 and PW2. PW1 has contended that he is not a money lender, but on the other hand, PW2 has admitted that the plaintiff is a money lender. That apart, PW2 had deposed that he was not aware whether the defendant has signed either in English or Tamil. Based upon the said discrepancy, the First Appellate Court arrived at a fin