The burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs to establish the authenticity of signatures and documents in a loan dispute.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 19.11.2010 made in O.S.No.102 of 2008, on the file of the Additional District Court (FTC–II), Salem District.

A. The Appeal :

1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.11.2010 in O.S.No.102 of 2008, by the Learned Additional District Judge Salem, in and by which, the suit filed by the plaintiff to pass a preliminary decree directing the defendants 1 to 5 to pay a sum of Rs.1,68,250/- with further interest at the rate of 9% per annum, and failing which, to order for the sale of the mortgaged property by way of a final decree, was dismissed by the Trial Court. The aggrieved plaintiffs are before this Court.

1.1 Hereinafter, in this judgment, the parties are referred to as per their array in the original suit.

B. The Case of the Plaintiffs :

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is the wife of one T.K.Kuppusamy, and the plaintiffs Nos.2 to 6 are the children. The said T.K.Kuppusamy died on 27.10.2004. The plaintiffs constituted a joint family. The first defendant is the son-in-law of the second defendant. Both of them borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the deceased T.K.Kuppusamy, and executed a promissory note dated 21.09.2003, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The third defendant is the father of the first defendant. The fourth defendant is the brother of the third defendant. The fifth defendant is the mother of the first defendant and the wife of the third defendant. Defendants 3 to 5 guaranteed the payment of the above loan by executing guarantee letters dated 05.07.2003, 01.09.2003 and 23.07.2003 respectively.

2.1 By the guarantee letter of the third defendant, he stood as a surety for the liability of his wife Geetha, his son Kirubakaran, his daughter-in-law, Aruna, and his daughter Vijaya. The guarantee letter executed by the fourth defendant is for his brother Kulasekaran, Geetha, Kirubakaran, Aruna & Vijaya. The guarantee letter by the fifth defendant is surety for others. This apart, the third defendant deposited the document of title to his property with an intention to create an equitable mortgage by way of security for the amount due on 02.09.2003. To confirm the deposit, he executed a memorandum of deposit of title deeds on 23.09.2003. The sixth defendant in the suit is an alleged mortgage lender by subsequent mortgage deed dated 16.10.2003. The said mortgage is invalid in law and is created to defeat the claim of the creditors. The plaintiffs, therefore prayed for the decree of recovery of money and for other reliefs.

C. The Case of the Defendants :

3. The suit is resisted by the defendants 1 to 5 by a filing separate written statement. The first defendant stated that, on inspection by him the suit promissory note is found to be fabricated and forged by misusing his signature in a blank form, earlier given by him, while he had borrowed monies in the years 2002 and 2003 from P.S.K Finance, belonging to the said T.K.Kuppusamy and family. They have also subscribed to the chit funds conducted by the said finance. The said T.K.Kuppusamy, himself is a former lawyer, well versed in Court proceedings. He had all the while been fabricating the promissory notes over the blank signatures and there is no such borrowal occurred as alleged by the plaintiffs. The alleged memorandum of deposit of title deeds is again forged and fabricated and there is a material alteration in the same. The earlier amounts borrowed in the year 2003 have been repaid, and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

3.1 The second defendant filed a written statement specifically denying his signature in the suit promissory note. It is his case that the signature is forged. He has not borrowed any amount from the said T.K.Kuppusamy.

3.2 The third defendant filed a written statement specifically a