Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and exercising power under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, trial Court compared the disputed signature of the Defendant in Ex.A1 promissory note with his admitted signature in the Written Statement and Vakalat and Ex.X1 and arrived at the conclusion that the disputed signature in Ex.A1 promissory note is that of the Defendant. Since plea of forgery had been taken by the Defendant, trial Court held that defence plea regarding incapacity of Thiyagarajan to pay the amount will not be an issue arising for determination and on those findings, trial Court decreed Plaintiff's suit.

10. Defendant has denied execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and Defendant has also raised plea of forgery. Since there was denial of execution, to prove execution, Plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and one Sekar-attestor to Ex.A1 promissory note as PW2. PWs.1 and 2 have consistently spoken about borrowal and execution of Ex.A1 promissory note. During cross examination of Defendant, his sample signature was obtained and marked as Ex.X1. Exercising powers under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, trial Court held that there are no differences or dissimilarities between the disputed signature and admitted signatures and arrived at the conclusion that the signature in Ex.A1 promissory note is that of the Defendant.