In a suit for recovery based on a promissory note, if the defendant denies execution, the initial burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act to establish due execution through credible and consistent evidence.

J U D G M E N T

The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for recovery of money based on Promissory Note. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court as prayed for. The appeal filed by the defendants was allowed and the suit dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come before this Court.

2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the respondents/defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 05.07.2011 from the plaintiff and executed suit promissory note. Inspite of demand made by the plaintiff, the defendants failed to repay the amount and hence, a legal notice was issued on 11.03.2014 calling upon them to repay the amount due under the promissory note. The defendants came up with a false reply, hence, the suit was laid seeking recovery of money based on the suit Promissory Note.

3. The defendants filed written statement denying the execution of the suit promissory note. It was the specific case of the defendants that they have not received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed suit promissory note. It was further pleaded that in the year 2004, the

1^st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.17,000/- from the plaintiff through one Magadevan and no promissory note or document was executed acknowledging the receipt of the above said amount. In the year 2009, the 1^st defendant repaid the entire amount together with interest and discharged the debt. It was also further pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff filed complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur against the 1^st defendant seeking recovery of Rs.85,000/- allegedly paid by him to the 1^st defendant and the said complaint was disposed by advising the parties to settle the dispute through Civil Court. On these pleadings, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1. One of the attestor to the suit promissory note was examined as PW.2. The scribe of suit promissory note was examined as PW.3. On behalf of the plaintiff, 5 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A5. The 1^st defendant was examined as DW.1. On behalf of the defendants, 3 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B3.

5. The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to suit claim and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.40 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ariyalur and the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come before this Court.

6. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial question of law, by order dated 19.06.2024:- “Whether the burden of proof lies on the defendants to prove that the signatures found in the promissory note do not belong to them?

Whether the plaintiff has discharged his initial burden as per Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act?”

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that due execution of suit promissory note was proved by the plaintiff by examining the attestor and scribe of the promissory note. The learned counsel further submitted that the First Appellate Court over looked the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving due execution of promissory note.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent by pointing out various contradictions in the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 stated that plaintiff failed to prove due execution of promissory n