This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge, (FAC) Namakkal in A.S.No.1 of 2020 confirming the judgment and decree of the Additional Sub Court, Namakkal in O.S.No.82 of 2012.

2. Respondent filed the suit claiming a sum of Rs.6,04,500/- with interest at 0.75% per month for Rs.100 on the Principal sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs.

3. The case of the respondent is that the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, from the respondent on 15.12.2009 to meet his family and business expenses. To evidence the said borrowing, he executed a promissory note and undertook to pay the amount on demand or order at the rate of 1.50% interest per month per Rs.100. The respondent met the appellant several times and requested him to pay the principal and interest. Final demand was made on 05.04.2012. Despite the demand, appellant has not paid any amount either towards principal or interest. Therefore, this suit.

4. The case of the appellant from his written statement is that the respondent is stranger to him and he had never seen him. The allegation that he borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- on 15.12.2009 to meet his family and business expenses, executed a promissory note agreeing to pay the principal with interest are all not true. No such borrowing had taken place and no promissory note was executed as claimed in the plaint. The claim of the appellant that, he met the respondent several times and demanded repayment is also not true. The truth is that he found, on inspection of the promissory note, after getting permission from the Court, that the signature and finger print in the promissory note are not that of the appellant. He did not know attestors and scribe and they are strangers to him. He never met them. Appellant has no necessity to borrow any money from third parties. He got loan from Indian Overseas Bank, doing agriculture and leading a comfortable life. The suit promissory note is fabricated promissory note with an intention to usurp the property of the appellant.

5. In the additional written statement filed, the appellant submitted that he was running a farm. He was procuring feeds for chicks from one Harin Feeds. As a consideration for supplying feeds, he was supplying eggs to Harin Feeds. Appellant required a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the purchase of chicks in 2010. He requested the owner of Harin Feeds, namely Senthil to lend him Rs.50,000/-. He directed him to approach his friend Ponnuvel son of Perumal to get a loan. At the time of borrowing Rs.50,000/- from Ponnuvel, appellant handed over two blank signed promissory note with his finger print. Three days after borrowal, he repaid the amount. He did not get back the signed blank promissory note from Ponnuvel. Reason is that Senthil and Ponnuvel are his friends from his school days. Believing them, he did not get back the blank promissory note. After seeing the report that the finger print in the suit promissory note is that of the appellant, he met Ponnuvel and asked him to return the signed blank promissory note. Ponnuvel informed him that those promissory notes are available with Senthil. Then, he met Senthil and asked him to return the blank promissory notes. He informed that the accounts between appellant and him with regard to the purchase of paultry feed is not settled and therefore, this suit is filed through his junior uncle. Thus, this suit is instituted by Senthil through his junior uncle, the respondent herein. The suit has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues, i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of money based on the pro note?

ii) Whether the suit promissory note is a forged document?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any other relief?

7. During the course of trial PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exhibit A1 was marked on the side of the respondent/plaintiff. DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the appellant/defenda