When a promissory note's execution is denied, the onus of proof shifts to the claimant, negating initial presumption unless credible evidence of execution is presented.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. Manjula, J.

The defendants are the appellants in the second appeal. The respondent / plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money based on the suit promissory note dated 28.10.2011 said to have been executed for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. The respondent / plaintiff has pleaded that one Ramachandran had borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 28.10.2011 and executed the promissory note on the same date in favour of the plaintiff and she agreed to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum. On 18.06.2012 the executant of the promissory note Ramachandran died. The defendants are the wife, daughter and mother of the deceased Ramachandran and they have been impleaded as legal heirs of late Ramachandran and the claim has been made against them for seeking a decree for the suit amount to be payable by the defendants from the estates of late Ramachandran inherited by them. An interest of a sum of Rs.9,62,500/- has been claimed.

2. The defendants 1 and 2 have contested the suit by raising a defense that the suit has been filed just to harass the defendants on an imaginary claim. The signature on the suit promissory note is not the signature of late Ramachandran. The defendants did not know the alleged scribe or witnesses shown in the promissory note. The suit promissory note is a fabricated one and created by colluding with the alleged witnesses and the scribe.

3. Late Ramachandran, his father Duraisamy and his brother Vijayakumar were carrying on business under the name and style RVM Textiles Pvt. Ltd., at Punjai Pulimapatti. As they sustained huge loss, Duraisamy and Vijayakumar wanted to get out of the business. Hence, Ramachandran along with the first defendant took over all the liabilities of the said company and was running the business in the company's name Sriram Air Compressors (Cbe) Pvt., Ltd. The said company had availed loans from M/s.Corporation Bank, IF Branch, Coimbatore. Ramachandran stood as a guarantor and he mortgaged his property situated in Upplipalayam, Coimbatore as security for the loan. The mortgage is still pending. However the plaintiff had obtained an order of attachment before the judgment on the same property without bringing the existing mortgage to the notice of the Court. The first defendant knew Subbiah who is the husband of the plaintiff as the acquaintance of her father-in-law Duraisamy, as Subbiah was supplying raw material to the Mill. After the business was taken over by the first defendant's husband, Subbiah pressurized the first defendant’s husband to settle dues not supported with any proof. The first defendant's husband Ramachandran died on 18.06.2012. This promissory note has been concocted by the said Subbiah in the name of the plaintiff who is his wife.

4. The third defendant has taken up a plea that the deceased Ramachandran was never in need of huge money and hence he need not borrow any money from the plaintiff. The plaintiff approached the defendants for repayment of money and they sought time for payment. In the meanwhile the plaintiff had filed the suit as though the amount has been borrowed by the first defendant’s husband Ramachandran on a promissory note.

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

i) Whether the suit promissory is true an