The presumption of validity for negotiable instruments is established unless effectively rebutted by the defendant, who bears the burden of proof regarding allegations of forgery.

JUDGMENT :

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

1. The unsuccessful defendant has preferred an appeal. The suit is filed for recovery of money with subsequent interest.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred as per their original rank in the suit.

3. The suit in O.S.No.206 of 2017 is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money with subsequent interest on the basis of the promissory note executed by the defendant.

4. Case of the plaintiff in brief as follows:-

(i) The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.17,75,000/- on 04.02.2016 and executed a suit promissory note. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant did not pay any amount and the defendant is maintaining a false case in P.R.C.No.8 of 2017 against the plaintiff only in order to escape from the liability of repaying the loan. Hence, the suit.

5. Case of the defendant in brief as follows:-

(i) The defendant was in possession of the first floor of the house belonging to one Latha for Oathi of Rs.3,50,000/-. The defendant is the relative of the said Latha. There was a dispute between the defendant and the said Latha. While so, the defendant's sister's son one Kaliyuganathan borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the said Latha and did not pay the interest. On the vengeance of the same, the plaintiff, the said Latha, her daughters Jegadeeswari, Ramya and Ramya's husband Babu jointly came to the defendant's house on 02.05.2016 and caused damages to the Car of the defendant and set fire to the same. Therefore, a complaint was lodged and P.R.C.No.8 of 2017 is pending against them. The present suit has been filed only in order to escape from the criminal case by forging the suit promissory note. There was no loan transaction between the parties. Therefore, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed as many as four issues on 25.04.2018 and thereafter, recasted the issue as follows:-

1. Whether the suit promissory note has been forged by the plaintiff?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount with subsequent interest.

3. What relief the plaintiff is entitled?

7. On the side of the plaintiff, he himself examined as P.W.1, one Latha examined as P.W.2 and one Kasirajan examined as P.W.3 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked.

8. Findings of the trial Court:-

An initial the burden lies on the plaintiff was discharged.

When the defendant had taken a plea of forgery, then, burden is on him to prove the same. The defendant has not taken any steps to obtain the opinion of expert in respect of the signature found in Ex.A1 promissory note. The factum of denying the signature by the defendant alone is not sufficient. The plaintiff has not forged the Ex.A1 promissory note and the plaintiff is proved the case.

9. Points for consideration arise in this appeal is that (i) whether the initial burden of proving execution of a statutory instrument/pronote has been discharged by the plaintiff or not and (ii) whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the suit amount with interest as prayed for in the suit?

10. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that there was no loan transaction between the appellant and the respondent. The respondent/plaintiff is one of the prime accused in the criminal case lodged by the appellant/defendant and in order to escape from the criminal liability, the plaintiff