The burden of proof lies on the defendant to dispute the execution of a promissory note and the validity of an assignment, and mere denial without valid evidence cannot be accepted.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 09.03.2007 passed in A.S. No.18 of 2005, on the file of the Sub Court, Kallakurichi, upholding the decree and judgment dated 02.11.2004 passed in O.S. No.219 of 2003, on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.)

1. The unsuccessful defendant before both the courts below has filed the present second appeal.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No.219 of 2003, on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi, for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,395/- together with interest and thereafter at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.20,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization from the appellant/defendant due under a promissory note dated 18.03.2000 (Ex.A1) executed by the appellant/defendant.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and in appropriate places, their rank in the present second appeal would also be indicated.

4. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is as follows:

The defendant executed a promissory note (Ex.A1) for Rs.20,000/- on 18.03.2000 in favour of one Jayamani, who in turn assigned the same (Ex.A2) in favour of the plaintiff on 23.08.2000. Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded the amount due under the promissory note from the defendant. Despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not come forward to make good the payment. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 11.02.2003 (Ex.A3) to the defendant and requested the latter to pay the amount due under the promissory note (Ex.A1). The defendant received the said notice, as evidenced by the postal acknowledgment card (Ex.A4), and sent a reply notice dated 14.02.2003 (Ex.A5), which contained false allegations. Hence the suit.

5. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the following grounds:

i. The defendant did not borrow any amount from the assigner Jayamani Ammal and executed the suit promissory note.

ii. Jayamani Ammal''s husband borrowed a sum of Rs.45,000/- from the defendant on 10.07.2000 and executed a promissory note in his favour. Since the defendant demanded the amount due under the promissory note from Jayamani Ammal''s husband, Jayamani Ammal fabricated the present promissory note (Ex.A1) and made over the same in favour of the plaintiff.

iii. Hence, there is no valid consideration for the suit promissory note and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff should be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

i. Whether the suit pronote is fabricated document?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim?

iii. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?

7. In the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself and four other witnesses and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. The defendant examined himself. However no documentary evidence was adduced on his side.

8. After full contest, the learned III Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, vide his decree and judgment dated 02.11.2004 on the following grounds:

i. The plaintiff has proved the execution of the suit promissory note by examining the scribe and the assigner as PW4 & PW5 respectively and the defendant did not take steps to prove that the signature found on the promissory note (Ex.A1) is not that of his.

ii. Mere denial of execution in the written statement without valid evidence cannot be accepted.

iii. The executor cannot dispute the absence or inadequacy of consideration in a suit filed by the assignee.

9. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant filed an appeal in A.S. No.18 of 2005, before the Sub Court, Kallakurichi. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kallak