The burden of proof lies with the one alleging forgery, and execution of a promissory note must be proven by comparing signatures to establish validity.

JUDGMENT :

R. HEMALATHA, J.

1. The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.343 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore. The respondent / plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- from the appellant / defendant together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of plaint. The suit is based on the promissory note dated 29.04.2004 (Ex.A1).

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

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

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 29.04.2004 and executed a promissory note (Ex.A1) on the same day promising to repay the principal together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on demand by the plaintiff or to his order. Though the plaintiff made repeated demands to the defendant to repay the amount due under the promissory note (Ex.A1) together with interest, the defendant did not come forward to make good the payment. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 09.12.2004 (Ex.A2) to the defendant calling upon him to pay the amount due under the promissory note (Ex.A1). The defendant received the said notice on 30.12.2004 as is evidenced by the postal acknowledgment card (Ex.A3) and sent a reply dated 07.01.2005 (Ex.A4), with false allegations. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a rejoinder dated 24.01.2005 (Ex.A5) and thereafter, filed the present suit.

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

i. All the allegations contained in the plaint are false.

ii. The defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff.

iii.The defendant did not execute the suit promissory note as alleged by the plaintiff.

iv. One Mahalingam, brother of the plaintiff used to lend money to various persons in the village where the defendant is also residing. One Sivalingam borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- from Mahalingam and repaid the amount with interest. However, Mahalingam was demanding more money from Sivalingam, due to which, there was a clash between two groups of the villagers. Since the defendant supported Sivalingam, the plaintiff has filed the suit against him by pressing into service a forged promissory note.

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

"(i) Whether the suit promissory note is executed for valuable consideration ?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount ?

(iii) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled ?"

6. In the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself and one another witness and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. The defendant examined himself and one another witness and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B5. The Secretary of Pichanur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank was examined as C.W.1 and the Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank, Thirumalaipalayam Village was examined as C.W.2. Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 which contained the admitted signatures of the defendant were marked through them.

7. The learned trial court judge, on considering the evidence on record, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, vide his decree and judgment dated 04.11.2006, on the following grounds:

i. The plaintiff has not proved that the defendant executed the suit promissory note (Ex.A1).

ii. The defendant is a stranger and the contention of the plaintiff that he lent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant that too without any security is unbelievable.

iii.The signatures of the defendant found on Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 are totally different from that on Ex.A1.

8. Aggrieved over