IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving due execution of a promissory note and the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment also emphasizes the power of comparing disputed signatures with admitted signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 17 of 2014 dated 15.11.2017 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 74 of 2010 dated 11.07.2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court at Nagapattinam.

1. The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note, has preferred the present Second Appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, reversing the findings of the trial Court, granting a decree in his favour.

2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that on 01.06.2019, he lent a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the defendant, who executed a promissory note on the same day, evidencing the borrowing and also undertaking to repay the same, together with interest at 12% per annum.

4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the borrowing and also the execution of the promissory note. It is the case of the defendant that he used to borrow money from the plaintiff earlier, but however, the last borrowing made by the defendant was in 2006 and the said loan was also repaid in 2008 and though the plaintiff has promised to destroy the promissory notes and other papers with him and the defendant has believed the same, misusing the same, the plaintiff has created the suit promissory note, forging the defendant’s signature.

5. The trial Court, based on the evidence of the witness PW-2 and PW-3 and the primary evidence of the plaintiff and defendant held that the defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff, the suit claim and proceeded to decree the suit.

6. However on Appeal by the defendant, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come up by way of the present Second Appeal. On 05.06.2018, the above Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“(a) Whether the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is liable to be set aside for reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court based on the discrepancies in the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3?

(b) Whether the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is sustainable in law when the execution of Ex-A1 (Promissory Note) has been proved in a manner known to law and when the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act also was in favour of the same?

(c) Whether the findings of the Lower Appellate Court are sustainable in law holding that the power of comparing the signature found Ex-A1 executed by the defendant and the defendant's signature in other Court material records was not justified by the Trial Court, when the reasons to exercise such power has been given by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 74 of 2010?”

7. I have heard Mr. D. Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant. Mr. N. Pragasam, learned counsel for the respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the plaintiff had proved due execution of the promissory note by examining PW-2 and PW-3 and thereby, the presumption of the said promissory note being for valid consideration arose and the defendant has not been able to rebut the said presumption by leading satisfactory, oral and documentary evidence. The learned counsel therefore, prays the Second Appeal being allowed, especially placing reliance on Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant would also place reliance on the decision of this Court Ragina Beevi and Others vs. Arasan in S.A. No. 733 of 2019 dated 31.01.2022, where this Court has held that even a signature that came into existence subsequent to disputed signature can be used for comparison. He would also place reliance on S.A. No. 653 of 2006 dated 01.04.2014 in the case of Chelladurai vs. Velmurugan, where this Court