The court emphasized that ocular evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses, can outweigh the opinion of a handwriting expert. The court held that the plaintiff's evidence, including the validity of the promissory note, was more reliable than the defendant's claims. The court found that the defendant failed to prove material alteration in the promissory note and upheld the trial court's decision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur, dated 10.08.2016 passed in O.S.No.47 of 2011.)

1. This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur, dated 10.08.2017 made in O.S.No.47 of 2011.

2. The Appellant is the defendant; the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note dated 05.11.2009; the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his personal needs and family expenditure and in consideration thereof, he had executed a promissory note; he agreed to repay the above said amount with interest at the rate of Rs.1.50 per Rs.100 per month either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand; despite repeated request, the defendant did not pay the loan amount; the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 15.11.2011, calling upon the defendant to pay the loan amount; since the defendant refused to pay the loan amount after receiving legal notice from the plaintiff, he filed the suit for recovery of money due to him.

3. The defendant filed a written statement stating that the defendant is not well known to the plaintiff; the defendant actually borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 31.03.2009, from one Loganathan and Subramani, who are running a finance company in the name and style of “VSL Leasing Finance Company” and on the same day, they obtained unfilled signed promissory note in writing by mentioning a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- at the top of the promissory note and also they obtained a blank cheque for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore; the plaintiff inserted numerical figure 1' in front of numerical figure 2' to make as Rs. 12,00,000/-; Loganathan had given cheque to one Karthick, who was not known to the defendant and Karthick withdrew a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from his account and in this regard, the defendant lodged a complaint before the police; the plaintiff does not have capacity to lend a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-; hence, the suit should be dismissed.

4. Based on both pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues:-

“i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to amount as claimed in the plaint?

ii) Whether the pronote was created by forgery with the help of one Loganathan as alleged?

iii) To what relief of any plaintiff entitled?”

5. During the course of evidence, on the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked; on the side of the defendant, two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and Exs.B1 to B8 were marked.

6. At the end of the trial, on considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved over the same, this Appeal Suit has been filed.

7. Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge had ignored the evidence of handwriting expert who had stated that numerical 1' has been inserted subsequently before numerical 2'; that would show that the promissory note was fabricated; the learned trial Judge has not taken into account the complicity of fact of Loganathan and Subramani in not filing the suit against the appellant out of past motive in the real estate business; despite a petition was filed for referring the admitted signature of the appellant/defendant to the hand writing expert, the same was dismissed; the defendant had taken the pain to get favourable order by fighting it out till the Supreme Court; the appellant/defendant managed to send Ex.A1/promissory note for forensic analysis, even though the forensic expert had given report about the forged nature of promissory note, the learned trial Judge did not give proper evidentiary value, though the initial presumption that had arisen in favour of the plaintiff was rebutted by the defendant and the benefit was not given to the defendant; the contradiction