12.In the light of the defence set out by the defendant as above narrated, it is seen that the burden is heavy upon the plaintiff to establish that the defendant borrowed the suit amount from him and executed the promissory note Ex.A1 as put forth in the plaint and similarly, the burden is also heavy upon the plaintiff to establish that the defendant on 07.11.1995 paid a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards the alleged borrowed sum and made an endorsement marked as Ex.A2 on the reverse side of the promissory note. From the materials placed, it is found that the suit transaction admittedly has not been witnessed by any third parties. Therefore, it is seen that there is no independent witness for sustaining the suit claim i.e., in support of the plaintiff's case, and as rightly determined by the trial court, when according to the plaintiff, no one has attested the suit transaction as such and when the defendant has disputed the execution of the promissory note contending that it is a forged document, the plaintiff should have endeavoured to compare the signatures found in Exs.A1 and A2 with that of the admitted signatures of the defendant to sustain his claim. However, for the reasons best known to the plaintiff he has not endeavoured to compare the signatures of the defendant with the disputed signatures through an expert. Accordingly, it is found that the trial court has rightly disbelieved the plaintiff's version. It is found that according to the defendant he used to sign only in Tamil and put his initial in English, while drawing the salary from his department and on the basis of the above testimony of the defendant, it is found that the pay disbursing authority of the defendant has been summoned and examined as P.W.3 and the pay bills for the months of March and April 1997 have come to be marked as Ex.A5 and Ex.A6. P.W.3 has admitted
