MADASWAMY PERUMAL Vs. KAIRALI CHIT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition by the second defendant questions the legality of the decree passed against him by the lower court. The suit is for money due under a promissory note the execution of which was denied by the second defendant. In view of such a denial, plaintiff had to adduce at least formal proof about the alleged execution of the note by the second defendant. Strangely enough there is no such evidence in this case. Pw. 1 examined on behalf of the plaintiff has not said anything about the promissory note or its execution. Plaintiff did not choose to enter the box and swear to the execution of the note by the second defendant. The total lack of legal evidence in that direction cannot be remedied by any impression formed by the learned Munsiff about the demeanour of the second defendant or about the impression formed about the comparsion of the admitted signature of the second defendant with the disputed signature in the note. The lower court seriously erred in passing a decree against the second defendant in the absence of any legal evidence to show that he signed the pronote. The decree is unsustainable and has to be set aside.

(2.) IN the result, this revision petition is allowed and the decree against the second defendant is set aside and the suit against him is dismissed with costs throughout. Allowed.