Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Whether the courts below are justified in placing reliance on the evidence of PW1 and PW2, who are interested witnesses and even otherwise, whether the evidence is not shaky and slender and falls to establish the genuineness?

9. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the trial court has placed the entire burden on the defendant to prove the case. In fact, best evidence has not been produced by the plaintiff. Similarly, the courts below have also not compared the signature of the defendant found in the promissory note with the signature found in vakalath. When the forgery itself has been pleaded and the evidence has been adduced to show that PW2 has a motive to falsely implicate the defendant, the courts below ought not to have relied upon the evidence of PW2. Hence he would submit that the decree and judgment of the courts below are liable to be interfered with.

12. It is the case of the defendant that the promissory note has been forged, then, the burden of proof is lies on him to establish the forgery. However, he has not taken any steps to establish the forgery of promissory note by producing his admitted and non admitted signatures to the forensic department to obtain experts opinion. Hence, this court is of the view that the defendant has not discharged his burden in proving the forgery. The courts below after considering all these facts, rendered a well found judgments and the same cannot be found fault. For all the reasons above, the substantial questions of law are answered against the revision petitioner.