IMPORTANT POINT
The signature of the maker of a promissory note must be proven for the presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act to apply; if the signature is disputed and found to be forged, the note is invalid.

JUDGMENT :

(C. Kumarappan, J.)

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 28.01.2016, made in A.S.No.40 of 2015, on the file of the VI Additional District Court, Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 01.10.2013, made in O.S.No.253 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai.)

The appellant herein is the respondent/defendant and the respondent herein is the appellant/ plaintiff before the Court below.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief averments of the plaint is as follows:

The plaintiff submits that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by executing a pro-note, dated 05.11.2008. As per the pro-note, the defendant agreed to return the borrowed amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In pursuance there of, the defendant has also executed a memorandum of deposit of title deed with xerox copy of the partition deed, which stands in the name of the defendant. It is the submission of the plaintiff that, while executing a memorandum of deposit of title deed, on 06.11.2008, the defendant agreed to deliver the original partition deed. However, he has failed to submit the same. Since the defendant evaded to repay the borrowed amount, the plaintiff has issued notice on 07.04.2010, demanding the defendant, to pay the principal as well as the interest. For which, the defendant sent a reply with untenable contention. Hence, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for recovery of Rs.2,35,333/- with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of plaint till the date of realisation. The plaintiff has also filed a reply statement. Wherein, he put forth his wherewithal to give a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the defendant.

4. The brief averments of the written statement is as follows:-

The said suit was resisted by the defendant by disputing the very borrowal of Rs.2,00,000/- and execution of pro-note, dated 05.11.2008, so also the alleged memorandum of deposit of title deed dated 06.11.2008. According to the defendant, the above documents are the rank one forgery of the plaintiff. This defendant submits that there was no necessity for him to borrow the amount as he has been doing business and that he was having sufficient resource at the relevant point of time. The defendant has also undertaken to file appropriate application to send for the pro-note for handwriting expert. Hence, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. The defendant in his additional written statement has stated that he has already filed an application to compare the signature of the defendant with the admitted signature.

6. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, 2 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2, and 8 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A8. On the side of the defendant, 2 witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and 2 documents were marked as Exs.B1 and Ex.B2.

7. After considering either side submission and based on the evidence and materials on record, the trial Court has found that the plaintiff has not proved his wherewithal to pay the loan amount, and has also relied upon the evidence of the handwriting expert and has dismissed the suit.

8. Aggrieved with the said findings of the trial Court, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. In which, the first Appellate Court had reversed the finding of the trial Court, on the basis of the presumption under Sections 20 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The first Appellate Court was of the view that the admitted signature of the defendant was not accepted by the plaintiff. Therefore, the first Appellate Court disbelieved the report of the handwriting expert. The first Appellate Court has also believed the evidence of the plaintiff and has ultimately decreed the suit by reversing the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

9. Aggr