This second appeal challenged the recovery decree based on allegations of forgery regarding the promissory note. The High Court upheld the lower courts' finding that the note was valid, relying on signature comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and concluding the appeal failed.
Second appeal dismissed; lower court decree and judgment upheld; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTIC E R.HEMALATHA
S.A.No.721 of 2011
Murugesan ...Appellant /Appellant/Defendant Vs.
1.Vasantha
2.Mani
3.Annadurai ... Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs 2 to 4
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 24.08.2009 passed in A.S. No.82 of 2008, on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchengode, upholding the decree and judgment dated 29.11.2005 passed in O.S. No.232 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.
JUDGMENT
The appellant Murugesan is the defendant in O.S.No.232 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode, while the respondents are the plaintiffs 2 to 4.
4.The case of the plaintiffs in nutshell is as follows:
The defendant Murugesan (D.W.1) borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the first plaintiff Subramani (P.W.1) on 20.04.1999 to meet his family expenses and executed a promissory note (Ex.A1) on the same day promising to repay the principal together with interest @ 24% per annum. Despite repeated demands made by him, the defendant did not come forward to make good the payment. Therefore, he issued a legal notice dated 12.10.2001 (a copy of which is marked as Ex.A2) to the defendant. The defendant received the said notice as evidenced by the postal acknowledgment card (Ex.A3) dated 12.10.2001. The defendant sent a reply notice dated 23.01.2001 (Ex.A4), which according to the first plaintiff, contained false allegations. Therefore he filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.83,730/together with interest @ 24% per annum.
5.The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the suit promissory note was not executed by him and that he used to sign only S.Murugesan and not M.S.Murugesan. According to him, his signature was forged on the suit promissory note by the first plaintiff. He therefore prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
framed the following issues. i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount as prayed for by him?
ii.To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?
7.In the trial court first plaintiff examined himself and two other witnesses and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The defendant examined himself and one another witness and marked Ex.B1 & Ex.B2.
8.After full contest, the learned District Munsif, Tiruchengode decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.83,730/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation.
9.The trial court observed that the plaintiffs have proved the execution of the promissory note (Ex.A1) by adducing acceptable oral and documentary evidence and that there is no good ground to hold that the first plaintiff forged the signature of the defendant on the promissory note. It is further observed that the defendant though had contended that his name is not M.S.Murugesan and only S.Murugesan, he has signed the vakalat and the postal acknowledgment card (Ex.A3) only as M.S.Murugesan and not as S. Murugesan.
plaintiff on the following substantial questions of law:
first appellate Court had compared the signature of the defendant found on the promissory note Ex.A1 and the signatures found on Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 and had come to a definite conclusion that the defendant had signed the suit promissory note. It is also his contention that both the Courts below had properly analysed the evidence on record and therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant should be dismissed.
"73.Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved : In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.
The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person."
Thus as per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the courts can compare the disputed signature, writing or seal with undisputed signature, writing or seal which have been admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court. P.W.2 and P.W.3, the attestors to the pro-note also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in all
material particulars. Moreover, this a a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure where the jurisdiction of the High Court is confined to a substantial question of law. A full Bench of the Supreme Court in Bholaram Vs. Ameerchand reported in AIR 1981 SC 1209 has held that the High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent factual findings of court below in a second appeal. Both the courts below did not place the burden of proof on the appellant / defendant and as per Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the courts can compare the signatures. Thus, the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. In fine, the second appeal fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
mtl
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode . 2. The District Munsif, Tiruchengode Copy to: The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to M/s.Zeenath Begum, Advocate SR.No.8555 +1cc to M/s.R.Meenal, Advocate SR.No.8609
S.A.No .721 of 2011
AJS(CO) CB(28/02/2022)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the burden of proof regarding the execution of a promissory note should be placed on the defendant who has denied the signature?
Whether the courts were justified in comparing signatures without expert aid to conclude the note was valid?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bholaram Vs. AmeerchandReferred¶41
Bholaram Vs. Ameerchand reported in AIR 1981 SC 1209 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MURUGESAN
VASANTHA
MANI
ANNADURAI
E R. HEMALATHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
E R. HEMALATHA
Parties & counsel
