MARIMUTHU KOUNDER Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the first defendant. The suit is on a promissory note. The promissory note is Ext.Al. It is dated 20-6-1975. The first defendant executed a promissory note, Ext.A2 on 15-12-1972 in favour of second defendant. The amount covered by Ext.A2 promissory note was Rs. 7,500/-. The second defendant endorsed this promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 5-6-1973. Thereafter, the first defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff showing the consideration of Ext.A2 and the interest on the amount advanced under Ext.A2 as the consideration for Ext.Al promissory note. Even after demand, the first defendant did not pay the amount. So, the plaintiff instituted the suit.

(2.) The first defendant contended that he has not executed the promissory note. He also contended that there is no consideration for the promissory note. The only question that has to be decided is whether the promissory note is a genuine one or not. Otherwise, the only point that has to be seriously considered is whether the first defendant has executed the promissory note. Normally, the promissory note does not require witnesses. It is really a difficult task for the plaintiff, who institutes a suit on promissory note to prove execution of the promissory note when the defendant denies the execution of the promissory note. In this case, the promissory note is in the handwriting of PW 2. He has been examined as a witness. His examination is plain and clear. He plainly states that the promissory note was executed in the presence of the first defendant and that he has signed the promissory note. This evidence was not shaken at all in the cross-examination of this witness. PW 1, the plaintiff has corroborated the evidence of PW 2.

(3.) The trial Court has rightly believed the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 and found that the promissory note has been executed by the first defendant. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court below ought not have believed PW 2. I do not see any reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW 2. No circumstance was pointed out to disbelieve PW 2. In the circumstances, I have to hold that the trial Court has rightly held that the first defendant has executed the promissory note.