A.Ganesan v. M.Ganesan
Case brief
What is this about?
C.R.P(MD)No.491 of 2025 and CMP(MD)No.2712 of 2025; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; R.Vijayakumar, J.; decided 24.02.2025; revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India by defendant A.Ganesan (counsel Mr.R.Ramasamy) against respondent/plaintiff M.Ganesan; suit O.S.No.69 of 2023 on file of Sub Court, Oddanchathiram for recovery of money on a pro-note; I.A.No.178 of 2024 sought comparison of disputed pro-note signature with defendant's signatures in pension form and Vakalat, alleging forgery; trial Court dismissed citing doubt over defendant's custody of pension form; held burden of proving genuine pronote falls entirely on plaintiff when defendant alleges forgery; hence no error in dismissal; revision dismissed with no costs.
What did the court decide?
In every case where the defendant disputes his signature in a pronote and contends that it is a forged document, the entire burden of proving the genuineness and validity of the suit pro-note rests upon the plaintiff.