Courts may compare signatures themselves but should rely on expert opinions to avoid hazardous conclusions, ensuring accurate assessments of evidence.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.147 of

1991 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala. The original respondent herein was the plaintiff in that suit, which was filed by him for realization of money.

2. The averments in the plaint are briefly as follows :

The defendant borrowed a sum of `35,000/- from the plaintiff on 11.2.1987 and executed a receipt which is stated as a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant undertook to pay 12% interest on the principal amount. The defendant did not repay the amount. Hence, the plaintiff issued a notice on 25.1.1990. The defendant personally met the plaintiff and requested one month's time to repay the amount. The plaintiff agreed for the same and the defendant executed another receipt on 31.1.1990 undertaking to repay the amount within a period of one month from that date. The defendant did not repay the amount even after repeated demands. The amount due to the plaintiff upto 31.1.1990 is `47,600/-. The plaintiff is entitled to get 12% interest from 31.1.1990 to the date of institution of the suit. That amount will come to `8092/-. The plaintiff is also claiming notice charges of `150/-. Hence the suit was filed for realization of a total sum of `55,842/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization.

3. The defendant filed a written statement mainly contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The defendant did not borrow `35,000/- or any other sum from the plaintiff on 11.2.1987 or on any other date. The defendant did not execute any receipt or promissory note in favour of the plaintiff undertaking to repay the amount with 12% interest. The defendant is conducting a small scale industry and he is not doing any business. The defendant after receiving the notice sent a reply notice through his counsel stating true facts. It is stated in the notice that the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff or executed any promissory note. Haridas, S/o.Kesavan, who was a near friend of the defendant was in inimical terms with the defendant. He fabricated the promissory note with the help of the witness and instituted the suit through the plaintiff, who is under the control of Haridas. Suit is barred by limitation. Plaintiff is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for in the suit.

4. Before the Sub Court, PW1 to PW3 and DW1 were examined and Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B3 were marked. The learned Sub Judge, on considering the evidence on record, found that the defendant borrowed `35,000/- from the plaintiff undertaking to repay the amount with 12% interest and executed Exts.A1 and A3 documents, and the suit was decreed directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of `55,742/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal sum of `35,000/- from the date of institution of the suit till realization with costs. Against that judgment and decree, the defendant filed this appeal.

5. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent/ plaintiff died and his legal heirs are impleaded as additional respondents 2 to 5.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant raised the following arguments : The court below ought to have found that there is no evidence to prove that the appellant has availed any loan from the respondent. The court below ought to have found that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is highly artificial and improbable. Even after finding that the admitted signatures and those signatures found in Exts.A1 and A3 are different, the court below erred in comparing them by itself instead of sending them for expert opinion.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to paragraph 15 of the decision of the Apex Court, reported in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal [2008(2)

KLT 267 (SC)], in which it was held as follows :

“15. While there is no doubt that Court can comp