PERIASAMY PADAYACHI Vs. ANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.140 of 1987, laid for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,000/-, based on a promissory note marked as Ex.A1 dated 26.2.1987, executed by the respondent/defendant in favour of the appellant/ plaintiff. The respondent/defendant resisted the suit, alleging that the suit promissory note dated 26.2.1987, marked Ex.A1, is a forged document.

(2.) Upon the above rival contentions, the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, framed the following issues: ii.Whether the suit promissory note marked as Ex.A1 dated 26.2.1987 is a forged document? iii.To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for?

(3.) To substantiate their respective contentions, the appellant/plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and also one of the attestors to the promissory notes as P.W.2, and marked five documents, viz., Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, of which, Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note dated 26.2.1987, executed by the respondent/defendant in favour of the appellant/plaintiff; Ex.A2 is the notice sent on behalf of the appellant/ plaintiff to the respondent/defendant dated 19.10.1987; Ex.A3 is the acknowledgment dated 23.10.1987 of the said notice dated 19.10.1987; Ex.A4 is the reply notice dated 26.10.1987; and Ex.A5 dated 13.5.1981 is the sale deed executed by the respondent/defendant, wherein, the husband of the respondent/defendant, the other attestor of the suit property, has signed as a witness. The respondent/defendant examined herself as DW1 and her husband was examined as DW2 and the scribe of the promissory note has been examined as DW3.