The plaintiff can prove a promissory note's validity through testimonial evidence, making expert testimony unnecessary if credible evidence is presented.

JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal has been filed as against the decree and judgment passed by the First Appellate Court i.e., I Additional District and Sessions Court in A.S. No.3/2014 dated 23.12.2014, wherein the appellant herein, has preferred an appeal as against the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.107 of 2006 dated 31.10.2012.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are as follows:

The defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from the Plaintiff on 12.09.2005 and agreed to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and also he executed a Promissory Note in favour of the Plaintiff. In spite of repeated demands made by the Plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the said loan amount. Therefore, the Plaintiff issued a Legal Notice on 03.06.2006 and the defendant received the said notice and issued a reply notice on 07.06.2006 with false averments and failed to make any payment. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed a Suit for recovery of money.

3. The bried averments of the Written Statement filed by the defendant are as follows:-

The Suit is false, vexatious and frivolous and the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him in the Suit. The defendant did not borrow Suit money from the Plaintiff and he never executed any promissory note. The said Promissory note is a forged one and not signed by the defendant. The Plaintiff issued a Legal notice dated 03.06.2006 and the same has been suitably replied on 10.06.2006. In fact, the Plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from the defendant on 19.02.2003. The mode of payment was through a cheque dated 19.02.2003 for Rs.1 lakh and Rs.2 lakhs by way of cash. For the said loan, the defendant made payment towards interest. On 12.09.2006, he revived back the documents executed by him for the said borrowal promising to pay the balance in a week or so. At that time, he handed over a Chit calculating the amount paid by him and the amount payable. Since the Plaintiff paid the entire principal amount in one lumpsum, this defendant returned the documents hoping that he will pay the amount due very soon. In fact, this defendant has been demanding the Plaintiff for the payment of balance amount due to him as noted in the Chit given by him. Because of the same, to defraud this defendant, the Plaintiff issued a notice containing false averments and the same was suitably replied by the defendant. The Promissory Note filed along with the Plaint must be a created one, after the notice sent by the Plaintiff. The defendant is owning agricultural lands and he is a retired elementary School Teacher and not doing any business or commercial finance business as alleged by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Based on the above said pleadings and upon hearing both sides and perusing the documents, the trial Court had framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the Suit Pronote is a forged one.

(ii) Whether no consideration passed for the execution of the Pronote.

(iii) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs.3,60,000/-

(iv) To what reliefs, the Plaintiff is entitled to.

5. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiff, he examined PW1 and PW2 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 and on the side of defendant, DW1 was examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3 were marked. After analysing the oral and documentary evidences adduced on either side, the trial Court decreed the Suit. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment passed by the trial Court dated 31.10.2012, the unsucceeding defendant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court i.e., I Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore in A.S. No.3 of 2015.

6. The First Appellate Cour