K SETHURATHINAM Vs. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No.344 of 1987 is the appellant in this second appeal.

(2.) THE appellant/ plaintiff laid a money suit in O.S. No.344 of 1987 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Musiri, for a decree to recover the money based on a promissory note dated 9.2.1985. But the suit was resisted by the respondent/ defendant, denying the very execution of the promissory note.

(3.) THEREFORE, it is well settled that the burden initially rests on the plaintiff to prove that the promissory note was executed by the defendant. Then only the plaintiff is entitled for presumption as against the defendant, as provided under Sec.118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.