A. THIRUMOORTHY Vs. S. BASTIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants who have lost their case both before the trial Court as well as before the first appellate Court are the appellants herein.

(2.) Plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of money based on Ex.A.1 promissory note, stated to have been executed by the defendants in favour of Grace Mary, wife of plaintiff. She is no more. Plaintiff after obtaining an order in a succession O.P, sued the defendants. He had also issued Ex.A.4, suit notice to both. It was received by 2nd defendant under Ex.A.6, however, returned by 1st defendant under Ex.A.5. Thus, the suit.

(3.) The suit has been resisted by the defendants. Second respondent filed the written statement, which has been adopted by the first defendant. They pleaded complete ignorance about the identity of plaintiff's late wife. Suit promissory note is a rank forgery. It was forged by plaintiff, a fraud and a drug addict. The promissory note is afflicted with material alteration. This is the gist of their case.