THE HON’’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.16 OF 1994 JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.08.1993 in O.S.No.210 of 1989 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, wherein the said suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.28,000/-, due under two promissory notes, was decreed with costs and interest at 18% per annum. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant. None appeared for the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the records. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.210 of 1989 on the strength of two promissory notes said to have been executed by the appellant/defendant i.e., for a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 03.07.1984 and Rs.20,000/- on 24.02.1986. According to the plaintiff, the defendant made part payment of Rs.2,000/- on 01.07.1986 on the first pronote towards interest and made an endorsement in that regard on behalf of the promissory note and in spite of repeated demands, the balance amount due under the first pronote and the entire amount due under the subsequent pronote remained unpaid. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the execution of the two promissory notes. But, however, denied part payment of Rs.2,000/- on 01.07.1986 or making an endorsement on the back of the pronote. The defendant further pleaded that he paid away the entire balance amount due under the first pronote in January 1985 after selling his house. He further pleaded that he was running a chit of which the plaintiff was a subscriber and when the plaintiff did not bid the chit till the end and for the amount payable, the defendant executed the second pronote by way of security and thus the second pronote is not supported by any cash consideration. He also pleaded that subsequently defendant paid away the entire chit amount. On the strength of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the endorsement of part payment on ‘A’ marked pronote is true, valid and supported by consideration? 2. Whether ‘B’ marked pronote was executed under the circumstances stated in written statement? 3. Whether the debt under ‘A’ marked pronote was discharged? 4. Whether the debt under ‘B’ marked pronote stand discharged as alleged in written statement? 5. Whether the suit claim is within time? 6. Whether the interest claimed is usurious? 7. To what relief? During trial, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. DWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were marked on behalf of the defendant. Exs.X.1 to X.11 were also marked. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial Court held that the signatures on the endorsements Exs.A.2 and A.4 are genuine and the suit is not barred by time. The trial Court further held that the defendant failed to establish that the second pronote Ex.A.3 is not supported by consideration and the defendant also failed to establish the plea of discharge in respect of the first pronote Ex.A.1 and also the plea of discharge in respect of the suit pronote. Accordingly, the suit was decreed for the principal sum of Rs.8,000/- due under the pronote Ex.A.1 and Rs.20,000/- due under the pronote Ex.A.3, making up a total of Rs.28,000/- together with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of the respective transactions till the date of filing of the suit and future interest at 6% p.a. till realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred the present appeal. The specific case of the plaintiff in the plaint and also in his evidence is that defendant borrowed Rs.10,000/- on 03.07.1984 and executed Ex.A.1 pronote and made a part payment of Rs.2,000/- on 01.07.1986 towards interest and made an endorsement under Ex.A.2. He further pleads that the defendant again borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- and executed the second pronote Ex.A.3 on 24.02.1986 and paid the interest that was agreed, up to 01.07.1986 thereon under the endorsement Ex.A.4. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff got issued a notice dated 12.5.1989 which the defendant received under the acknowledgment Ex.A.6, but he did not give any reply. In the written statement, the defendant categorically admitted the borrowal of Rs.10,000/- and execution of the pronote Ex.A.1, but disputed the part payment of Rs.2,000/- and the endorsement Ex.A.2. He admitted the execution of Ex.A.3 pronote, but pleaded that it was not for any cash consideration, and it was executed by way of security for the amount due and payable by him to the plaintiff under a chit transaction. He also pleaded that subsequently the chit amount was paid away. He, however, disputed payment of interest under the endorsement Ex.A.4. He further contended that the endorsements Exs.A.2 and A.4 were fabricated by the plaintiff only to save the limitation. Insofar as the first pronote Ex.A.1 is concerned, the defendant pleaded that he paid away the entire amount due thereunder after selling his house in January, 1985. The date on which the said payment is made is not disclosed either in the written statement or in the evidence of PW.1. Admittedly, no receipt was obtained evidencing such payment nor any endorsement made on the pronote and the defendant also did not bother to seek return of the promissory note Ex.A.1. Not only that when the plaintiff got issued fresh notice under Ex.A.5, the defendant did not issue any reply to the plaintiff based on Ex.A.1 or pleaded discharge. In the absence of any evidence in support of the plea of discharge, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the said plea. The conduct of the defendant and the probabilities of the case also tend to negative the said plea of discharge putforward by the defendant, apart from the fact that the said plea totally remains unsubstantiated. Regarding the second pronote Ex.A.3 also, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the defendant paid away the chit amount to the plaintiff. The evidence on record no doubt shows that the defendant was running some chit transactions at the relevant time, but there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was a subscriber of the chit or that Ex.A.3 pronote was executed by way of security for payment of any amount due by the defendant to the plaintiff under any such chit transaction. The date on which the chit amount was paid by the defendant is also not disclosed either in the written statement or in the evidence of D.W.1 and no receipt or any other document is also filed evidencing any such payment. The averment in the written statement that the chit was concluded and the amounts were paid to the plaintiff, apart from being vague for want of details of the payment, also remains unsubstantiated for lack of any evidence in that regard. If really the defendant had paid away the chit amount and Ex.A.3 was nominally executed by way of security for the chit amount, there was absolutely no reason as to why the defendant has not obtained return of the pronote Ex.A.3 with due endorsement of discharge thereon. That apart, as stated supra, the defendant did not raise any such plea by way of reply to the plaintiff’s notice Ex.A.5. In the circumstances, the trial Court has rightly held that the defendant failed to establish the plea that Ex.A.3 pronote was devoid of consideration and also the plea that the chit amount was paid away. The only question, which remains for consideration is whether the endorsements, Exs.A.2 and A.4 are genuine. Admittedly, the endorsements were returned by the plaintiff and according to plaintiff, none else was present at that time. The defendant denied his signatures on Exs.A.2 and A.4. The documents containing the disputed signatures were sent to one Mr.C.T.Bhanagay, Handwriting Expert for examination and comparison with the standard signatures and specimen signatures and give opinion. It is stated that the opinion was given by one D.W.4 V.S.Athale under Ex.X.5 wherein he stated that on comparison of the disputed signatures of the defendant on Exs.A.2 and A.4 with the admitted signatures contained in Exs.A.1 and A.3 and the specimen signatures, it was found that they were not made by this person. The competence and authority of DW.4 to examine the disputed signatures and give his opinion is questioned by the plaintiff. Admittedly, the documents were not sent to D.W.4, but were sent to one Mr. C.T.Bhanagay, Handwriting Expert. D.W.4 claims that he examined the disputed signatures along with Mr.C.T.Bhanagay. There is nothing on record to show that Mr.C.T.Bhanagay has authorised D.W.4 to examine the documents and give an opinion. The material on record shows that the trial Court sent the documents only to Mr.C.T.Bhanagay and the necessary correspondence was entered into with him only and D.W.4 was never entrusted with the job by the Court. The trial Court has, therefore, not placed any reliance on the opinion Ex.X.5 furnished by D.W.4, as he was not the person entrusted with the matter or authorised to examine the signatures and give his report. Even otherwise, the trial Court on scrutiny of the opinion Ex.X.5 and the testimony of D.W.4 held that admittedly even the signatures, which are taken as standard signatures for the purpose of comparison, whether they are admitted signatures contained on Exs.A.1 to A.4 or the specimen signatures taken in the Court, they are so vastly different from one another. No two signatures taken as standard are similar and there are natural variations in the standard signatures. When this is so, the variations found between the disputed signatures and the standard signatures cannot be taken serious note of. As seen from the disputed signatures and the standard signatures, it is apparent that no two signatures are similar and there are natural variations and are different from one another. When that is so, the opinion of D.W.4 that the disputed signatures on Exs.A.2 and A.4 are not tallying with the admitted or standard signatures loses its relevance as no two signatures are looking similar. Thus, even if the report Ex.X.5 of D.W.4 is taken into consideration, the same does not clinchingly establish the plea of the defendant that Exs.A.2 and A.4 are fabricated. It is well settled proposition that the evidence of the Handwriting Expert is only in the nature of opinion and the same cannot be decisive to tilt the scales either way and the same has to be considered in the light of the other evidence available on record. In the present case, the evidence on record, the conduct of the parties, and the probabilities of the case, do not support any of the pleas of the defendant and on the other hand, established the claim of the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff cannot be defeated by merely placing reliance on the opinion recorded by D.W.4 who was, in fact, not entrusted with the job of comparison of the signatures. The finding of the trial Court that the endorsement Exs.A.2 and A.4 are genuine and, therefore, the suit claim is within time does not call for any interference. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court which is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record . There are no merits in the appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th July, 2010 PNV