B. VENKATARAMAN Vs. VINCENT JAYASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S. No. 829 of 1995 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruppur for recovery of money due on a promissory note dated 20.12.1992 allegedly executed by Balasubramanian, the father of the appellant herein, in favour of the respondent herein for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - for value received. As the borrower Balasubramanian died after the execution of the promissory note and his son, the appellant herein, got his properties under a will left by him, the suit came to be filed by the respondent herein against the appellant for the recovery of the amount due under the promissory note from out of the properties he got under the will of his father.

(2.) THE appellant/defendant took a plea that the suit promissory was not genuine and his father did not borrow the amount alleged in the plaint under the suit promissory note. It was also contended that a promissory note should have been signed by the scribe and also attested by two witnesses and that since the suit promissory note does not contain the signature of any person other than the scribe, the suit promissory note was not valid. It was also contended by the appellant/defendant in his written statement that there was no necessity for his father to make borrowal under the suit promissory note; that the signature and thumb impression found in the suit promissory note were not that of his father and that they were forged and the suit promissory note had been fabricated with forged signature and thumb impression.

(3.) THE parties went for trial based on the above said issues, in which, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and four documents were marked as Exs. A1 to A4 on the side of the respondent herein/plaintiff and two witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 and 2 and one document was marked as Ex. B1 on the side of the appellant herein/defendant.