JUDGMENT

It is a case wherein the defendant had denied his own signature found affixed in the Vakkalath submitted by him besides the written statement submitted, while attempting to deny the signature found affixed in the disputed document, a promissory note, as that of him in the box as DW1. The legal position is settled by the Apex Court in K.S.Satyanarayana v. V.R.Narayana Rao [1999 KHC 1269). When there is denial of admitted signature in the Vakkalath and the written statement, it would prima facie show the falsity writ large on its face. Thus, the oral evidence tendered is not only liable to be rejected, but also goes against the very factum of denial of due execution.

Regarding Ext.B1 passport, the trial court rejected it on the reason that no case was advanced in the plaint that he was abroad during the year 2009. Evidence without pleading will not serve any purpose. Admittedly, Ext.B1 passport was not taken in the address at Kerala. The reason advanced by him that he is not maintaining his old address was rejected by the court below on the reason that he had received Ext.A2 demand notice in the same address and replied by showing the very same address. The expert evidence a