The execution of a promissory note requires not only admission of signature but also corroborative evidence to substantiate the transaction.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in a suit for money is the appellant.

The suit was decreed by the trial court. The decree was reversed in Appeal by the defendant. Hence the Regular Second Appeal.

2. According to the plaintiff, on 25.11.1997, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ext A1 Demand Promissory Note, undertaking to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The defendant failed to repay the amount, upon which the suit is filed.

3. The defendant denied the execution of the Promissory Note. According to him, the plaintiff had been conducting kuries. He along with one Vijayakumar were subscribers to a kuri. On Vijayakumar having bid the kuri, he was required to give security of another subscriber. Since the defendant was another subscriber, his blank signed papers were entrusted to the plaintiff. The same has been misused / fabricated for creation of Ext A1. The defendant further alleged that, the prize money amount due to him under a kuri with the plaintiff was not paid by the plaintiff. Seeking payment of the same, a counter claim was also raised.

4. The trial court upheld the case of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed. The counter claim was dismissed. Challenging the decree in the suit, the defendant filed first appeal. As regards the counter claim, no Appeal was preferred. The appellate court held that plaintiff failed to prove the execution of Ext A1 Promissory Note and accordingly allowed the Appeal and dismissed the suit.

5. Heard learned counsel Sri.P.K.Mohanan on behalf of the appellant and Sri.Aneesh K.M on behalf of the respondent on the following substantial question of law.

“Was the appellate court right in holding that the execution of Ext A1 Demand Promissory Note was not proved even when the defendant had admitted his signature thereon?”

6. It is the case of the plaintiff as PW1 that the Promissory Note was signed and the transaction took place in the presence of one Gopala Krishnan, Prabhakaran and Safaiyya. They are the only witnesses to the transaction. Apart from Ext.A1 there is no other material to evidence the transaction. However, none of the said witnesses were examined to prove the execution of Ext A1 and the transaction. According to the plaintiff, she availed a loan from the Desamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. for raising funds for lending to the defendant. There is no special reason why the plaintiff should advance amounts to the defendant by availing a loan. In Velayudhan v. Velayudhan (2001(1) KLT 392) a Division Bench of this Court held that, mere admission of signature in a document does not amount to the proof of execution. Having contended that the execution and the transaction were witnessed by three persons, the non-examination of the same assumes significance. The finding of the appellate court that, the plaintiff has failed to prove due execution of Ext A1 Promissory Note is a finding on facts and is a possible view on the materials. This Court cannot interfere even assuming that another view is also possible. The substantial question of law is answered as above.

In the circumstances, the Regular Second Appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed.