TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rove that the said instrument is not supported with consideration. Here it is a case, when at the time the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1, in her evidence, she has narrated the time, manner and the circumstances on which, the defendant received the loan amount and about the execution of the pro-note. In respect of the execution, the evidence given by P.W.1 was fully corroborated through the evidence given by P.W.2, who is one of the attestors, signed in the pro-note as a witness - it is the stand taken by the defendant that the suit pro-note is a fabricated one and the signature found in the suit pro-note is not belonged to him. Though it was argued on the side of the defendant that the suit pro-note is a forged one, the evidence let in by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efendant - the suit pro-note was executed by the defendant. The second appeal is dismissed. - S.A. No. 1416 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2022 - R. Pongiappan, J. For the Appellant : Meenatchi for P. Anbarasan For the Respondents : R. Meenal JUDGMENT R. Pongiappan, J. 1. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings made in A.S. No. 130 of 2010 dated 30.03.2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram and in O.S. No. 540 of 2004 dated 29.01.2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet. The appellant, who is the defendant in the above referred suit, is before this Court with the present second appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and made a false claim from the defendant. The promissory note filed in the suit is fabricated one. The plaintiff has no means to pay any debt to the defendant. As the suit promissory note is fabricated and forged one, the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit has to be dismissed. 5. Based on the above averments, the trial Court framed necessary issues and tried the suit. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and two documents were marked as Exs. A1 and A2. On the side of the defendant, one witness has been examined and no document has been marked. 6. Having considered the materials placed before him, the learned Principal Distr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, when at the time the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1, in her evidence, she has narrated the time, manner and the circumstances on which, the defendant received the loan amount and about the execution of the pro-note. In respect of the execution, the evidence given by P.W.1 was fully corroborated through the evidence given by P.W.2, who is one of the attestors, signed in the pro-note as a witness. 10. In the said circumstances, it is the stand taken by the defendant that the suit pro-note is a fabricated one and the signature found in the suit pro-note is not belonged to him. Though it was argued on the side of the defendant that the suit pro-note is a forged one, the evidence let in by P.W.1 and P.W.2 is sufficient to accept the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rison. In fact, before the trial Court, the defendant has not produced the documents which are all signed by him in the relevant point of time for enabling the Court to come to the correct conclusion. Of course, for comparison under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, being the reason that the signature found in the written statement and vakalat are not contemporary documents, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to send those documents for chemical examination. 14. The Courts below have traversed on the same line and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved her case and rejected the claim made by the defendant. I am also of the same view that the suit pro-note was executed by the defendant. Accordingly, in view of the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
