Judgment :- K. Narayana Kurup, J. The sole defendant in O.S.25 of 1986 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottarakkara is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing the suit for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- together with interest at 6% on the principal sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the date of suit till realisation from the appellant - defendant and his assets. 2. Facts:- The plaintiff is the wife of the nephew of the appellant. The suit was one for money due under Ext. A1 promissory note. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her on 28.10.1985 by executing Ext. A1 demand promissory note as security in his own handwriting and signature after receiving two cheques drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Ezhukone Branch, undertaking to repay the amount together with 12% interest as and when demanded. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff to return the amount, defendant did not pay the amount. Mediation having failed, Ext. A-4 lawyer notice was sent on 22.3.1996. But it was returned un served with the endorsement 'refused'. Hence, the instant suit. 3. The defendant filed a written statement denying plaint averments and contending inter-alia that he had not borrowed any money from the plaintiff and that in fact there was no occasion for him to borrow the money. He has stated that he only knows that the plaintiff is the wife of one Suseelan, the son of his sister Sarada. According to the defendant, he is a bachelor and he was residing along with his sister Sarada - mother-in-law of the plaintiff. He purchased one acre of land comprised in Survey No. 89/20B in the name of his sister and that property is in his possession. The document relating to that property has been taken by the sister stating that she wanted to show the sale deed to her husband for perusal. There was monetary transactions between him and his sister by which he had advanced amounts to her on various occasions totalling to Rs. 99,900/- and when he demanded re-payment of the said amount, he was told that the same will be paid after the marriage of her son Suseelan, the husband of the plaintiff. According to him, he had sufficient bank balance and there was no necessity to borrow any money from the plaintiff. 99,900/- and when he demanded re-payment of the said amount, he was told that the same will be paid after the marriage of her son Suseelan, the husband of the plaintiff. According to him, he had sufficient bank balance and there was no necessity to borrow any money from the plaintiff. The specific case set up by the defendant is that on 27.10.1985 his sister and her husband had gone to his residence and entrusted two cheques dated 28.10.1985 for an amount of Rs. 99,900/- towards the amount due to him. It was encashed by him on 28.10.1985. According to the defendant in January 1986 his sister and her husband asked him to surrender one acre of land purchased by him in the name of his sister as she has repaid the amount due to him. They also wanted him to settle his property in favour of his sister. The defendants then thought of settling the property in favour of his relatives excluding his sister and her children. His sister and her husband on coming to know of it, forged a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and on the basis of the same, the suit is filed. The defendant has denied that any notice has been issued to him as stated in the plaint. It is further contended that the case set up by the plaintiff is false from the fact that the promissory note is for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- whereas the amount covered by the two cheques is for a sum of Rs. 99,900/-. The plaintiff filed a replication denying the averments contained in the written statement. It was stated that she issued the cheques drawn on the Indian Overseas Bank, Ezhukone Branch for an amount of Rs. 99,900/- and also paid a sum of Rs. 100/- in cash. She has categorically denied any knowledge regarding any financial assistance given by the defendant to his sister, viz, her mother-in-law. The contention that the cheques in question were given to the defendant by his sister and her husband as repayment of the money received by his sister from the defendant was flatly denied as totally incorrect and devoid of any bonafides. The contention that the cheques in question were given to the defendant by his sister and her husband as repayment of the money received by his sister from the defendant was flatly denied as totally incorrect and devoid of any bonafides. According to the plaintiff, she is not aware of the bank balance of the defendant and she is not aware whether the defendant's sister and her husband have interest in getting his property or any part thereof. She reiterated the circumstances under which the cheques were issued by her to the defendant and the promissory note executed by him. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 3 and documentary evidence Exts. A1 to A6 on the side of the plaintiff and the oral evidence of DW-1 and documentary evidence Exts. B1 to B6 on the side of the defendant. The trial court on a consideration of evidence on record and the pleadings and on comparison of the disputed signature on Ext. A1 with the admitted signatures in Exts. B5 and B6, decreed the suit as prayed for after entering a finding that the promissory note has been executed by the defendant and the same is supported by consideration. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the court below, the defendant filed the instant appeal before this court. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-defendant filed C.M.P. No. 26081 of 1988 before this court praying to send Ext. A1 pronote to a Handwriting Expert. That was allowed by this Court by order on C.M.P. No. 26081/88 dated 25.10.1988 and the court below was directed to forward Ext. A1, Exts. B5 and B6 to the Director of Government Forensic Laboratory, Trivandrum for verification by a Handwriting Expert of the signature in Ext. A1 in comparison with the admitted signature in Exts. B5 and B6 and for his report as to the verification and his conclusion on condition that the expense for the same is to be met by the defendant by depositing the same in the court below within three weeks from 25.10.1988 and if the amount is so remitted, the lower court was directed to forward Exts. A1 and B5 and B6 for comparison by an expert, obtain a report, take further evidence and forward the same to this Court. However, the appellant-defendant did not remit the amount within the prescribed time. A1 and B5 and B6 for comparison by an expert, obtain a report, take further evidence and forward the same to this Court. However, the appellant-defendant did not remit the amount within the prescribed time. The extension of time sought for by him was disallowed by the court below stating that the court has no jurisdiction to grant extension. Then he filed a petition before this Court and this Court extended the same. Thereafter, the documents were forwarded to the Handwriting Expert and the report was obtained from him. The Handwriting Expert was examined as DW. 2. Ext. Cl report furnished by DW 2 and his evidence were forwarded to this Court. 5. The question to be considered is whether the appellant-defendant is entitled to succeed in this appeal and whether the plaintiff-respondent has succeeded in proving the case pleaded by her in the suit. The case of the defendant is one of total denial of execution of Ext. A1 promissory note. According to him, he never executed Ext. A1 pro-note and the circumstances under which it is executed is highly suspicious. However, in the face of the clinching evidence adduced by the plaintiff regarding the execution of promissory note and the circumstances leading to its execution coupled with the evidence of D W. 2, the handwriting expert, we are satisfied that the promissory note in question has been executed by the defendant and the same is duly supported by consideration. The plaintiff as PW 1 has stated in her evidence that the defendant had gone to the house where herself and others were residing during the third week of October 1985 and asked for a loan for purchasing a property for which he had already entered into an agreement with another person and that her husband (nephew of the defendant) asked her to give the amount required by the defendant after making a promissory note. On 27.10.1985 the defendant had gone to the house where the plaintiff is residing and at that time her husband was not there as he had gone to Nedumangad where he was working as a Sub Inspector of Police. The defendant told her that he requires the money asked for. On 27.10.1985 the defendant had gone to the house where the plaintiff is residing and at that time her husband was not there as he had gone to Nedumangad where he was working as a Sub Inspector of Police. The defendant told her that he requires the money asked for. Then the plaintiff told him that the cheque books are kept in her ancestral house at Ezhukone and that she will issue the cheque on the next day if the defendant would go to her ancestral house. Accordingly the plaintiff had gone to her ancestral house and on that day itself and stayed there. On 28.10.198 5 between 9 and 9.3 0 am the defendant had gone to plaintiff s ancestral house for getting the amount. He first told the plaintiff that he requires only Rs. 50,000/- as he intend to purchase only one item of property immediately, and the other item of property will be purchased later. Plaintiff issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-and asked him to execute a promissory note. The defendant then told the plaintiff that if the promissory note is to be executed, he wants to avail a further sum of Rs. 50,000/ -to avoid execution of 2 promissory notes. The plaintiff then issued another cheque for Rs. 49,900/- and also paid Rs. 100/- in cash. She has stated that there is only Rs. 1,00,000/- in her account and if a cheque for a further amounts of Rs. 50,000/- is issued, her account will have to be closed. To avoid that, a cheque for Rs. 49,900/- was issued and the deficiency was made up by paying Rs. 100/- in cash. Though the defendant at first said that she need not pay Rs. 100/- it was paid and he received it. Thereafter, the defendant wrote the promissory note in his own handwriting, signed the same and affixed the stamps brought by him on the promissory note. The promissory note was then handed over to PWs. 2 and 3 who were present for signing as witness. After the witnesses signed, the promissory note was handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant himself. Though the plaintiff was subject to cross-examination, nothing has been brought out to dis-credit her testimony. To a pointed question, she has categorically replied that the cheque have been personally given by her to the defendant. After the witnesses signed, the promissory note was handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant himself. Though the plaintiff was subject to cross-examination, nothing has been brought out to dis-credit her testimony. To a pointed question, she has categorically replied that the cheque have been personally given by her to the defendant. She has also stated that the amount was borrowed by the defendant for purchasing properties covered by Exts. B5 and B6. 6. PW. 2 is an Overseer working in the Electricity Board. He had gone to the ancestral house of the plaintiff in the morning of 28.10.1985 to meet the plaintiffs brother, an Advocate to get the key of the cinema theatre situated nearby and owned by his uncle because there was some defect in the meter installed in the theatre and he was requested to rectify the same. It was at that time the cheques were issued and the promissory note executed. PW. 2 has also signed as a witness in the promissory note. He has further stated that PW. 3, Dr. Radhamohan who was present there, signed as a first witness. The evidence of PW. 2 has not been shaken though he was cross-examined by the counsel for the defendant at length. P.W. 3, Dr. Radhamohan has given evidence to the effect that the mother of the plaintiff is his patient and he used to go to that house to check-up her and that on the morning of 28.10.1985 he had gone there. While he was there, the defendant also came there and he was introduced to him by the plaintiff as the uncle of her husband. He heard the defendant asking for the money and saw the plaintiff giving the cheques and also the defendant writing and signing the promissory note. As requested by the plaintiff, he figured himself as a witness in the promissory note. Nothing is brought out in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony, 7. The plaintiff has produced and marked Exts. A1 to A6. Ext. A1 is the promissory note, the execution of which is proved by PWs.1 to 3. Ext. A2 is the Saving Bank Pass Book of Indian Overseas Bank, Ezhukone Branch in the name of the plaintiff. It can be seen from Ext. A2 that a sum of Rs. 99,900/- had been drawn on 28.10.1985 on presenting two cheques. Exts. Ext. A1 is the promissory note, the execution of which is proved by PWs.1 to 3. Ext. A2 is the Saving Bank Pass Book of Indian Overseas Bank, Ezhukone Branch in the name of the plaintiff. It can be seen from Ext. A2 that a sum of Rs. 99,900/- had been drawn on 28.10.1985 on presenting two cheques. Exts. B5 and B6 are the copies of sale deeds executed by one Sarojini in favour of the defendant on 31.10.1985 and 22.11.1985 respectively which probabilise the case of the plaintiff that the defendant utilised the money after encashing the cheques for purchasing Exts. B5 and B6 properties in regard to which the defendant had already entered into an agreement with another person. The case set up by the defendant that he has enough bank balance as on the relevant date is belied by the admission made by him that he did not pay the entire sale consideration in respect of Ext. B6 property purchased on 22.11.1985 and had to reserve a sum of Rs. 3,200/- for future payment to the vendor. Thus on an over all consideration of the evidence on record and the pleadings, we are satisfied that the defendant had borrowed the amount from the plaintiff for purchasing Exts. B5 and B6 properties for which he had already entered into an agreement with one Sarojini and that he has encashed the cheques on the very same day that is, on 28.10.1985. On 31-10-1985 he purchased Ext. B5 property. Thereafter, on 22.11.1985 he purchased Ext. B6 property. Evidently he had no funds other than the amount taken from the plaintiff for effecting the purchase. That is why in Ext. B6 he had reserved a sum of Rs. 3,200/- for payment to the vendor within a period of three months without interest. It is stipulated therein that if the payment is not made within that time, he is liable to pay interest also. In his written statement, it is contended that there was no necessity for him to take a loan from the plaintiff as he was having enough money in the bank(s) at that time. When he was questioned about this fact, he stated that he was having accounts in six banks and he had undertaken that he will produce records before the Court to show that he had enough money in his account. When he was questioned about this fact, he stated that he was having accounts in six banks and he had undertaken that he will produce records before the Court to show that he had enough money in his account. Strangely enough, the defendant did not produce any record to prove this fact. This fact, taken along with the fact that he could not pay the entire sale consideration for Ext. B6, will prove that he was not having any funds to buy Exts. B5 and B6 properties probabilise the case of the plaintiff as pleaded- in the plaint. The attempt made by the appellant to establish his case of total denial of execution of Ext. A1 promissory note by getting the opinion of an Expert has miserably failed. The opinion of the Expert contained in Exts. Cl and Cl (a) is prima-facie against the appellant. The evidence of DW 2 may not also help the appellant to establish his contentions in the suit. Even accepting the contention of the appellant that the opinion of D W-2 cannot be relied on as conclusive and foolproof the opinion will only probabilise the case of the respondent. On the other hand, if accepted as reliable it may even demolish the entire case of the appellant. 8. As against the cast iron case of the plaintiff, the case put forward by the defendant in the written statement is one of total denial of execution of Ext. A1 and which bristles with contradictions. At one place, he would say that he is not familiar with the plaintiff, that he had not even talked to her and that there was no occasion for him to ask for money from the plaintiff and the plaintiff to issue cheques to him. His case is that the cheques were taken to him by his sister and her husband as repayment of the loan. Quite contrary to the said contention in paragraph 15 of the written statement he has categorically admitted that he has received Rs. 99,900/- on the basis of the cheque given to him by the plaintiff. This aspect is also considered by the court below in paragraph 12 of the judgment and held that the admission mentioned above would expose the hollowness and falsity of the contention raised by the defendant in the written statement. 99,900/- on the basis of the cheque given to him by the plaintiff. This aspect is also considered by the court below in paragraph 12 of the judgment and held that the admission mentioned above would expose the hollowness and falsity of the contention raised by the defendant in the written statement. The case set up by the appellant-defendant that the cheques were handed over to him by his sister and her husband as repayment of the loan advanced by him has no legs to stand as there is absolutely no material to show apart from the ipse-dixit of the appellant that he advanced any amount to them. The further case of the appellant is that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 who are chance witnesses. We do not agree. Both PWs. 2 and 3 have satisfactorily accounted for their presence at the ancestral house of the plaintiff on the relevant date. Therefore, their evidence cannot be discarded on that score. It was further contended that non-exammation of the brother of the plaintiff who is an advocate who was present when the transaction took place belies the plaintiffs case. We do not think so. Since the plaintiff has examined PWs. 2 and 3 who are witnesses to Ext. Al, non-examination of her brother is of no consequence. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. 9. We may at this stage briefly refer to the additional evidence adduced in this case as per the directions issued by this Court in this appeal as per the order passed in C M.P. 26081 of 1988 dated 25.10.1988. The Expert to whom the disputed signature was forwarded for examination has submitted a report which has been marked by the trial court as Ext. Cl, The forwarding letter sent along with the report is marked as Ext. Cl(a). The Expert has also been examined as DW-2 in the case. The trial court has forwarded the evidence recorded and the report and other papers marked as Exts. Cl and Cl(a) to this court as directed by this Court. 10. Cl, The forwarding letter sent along with the report is marked as Ext. Cl(a). The Expert has also been examined as DW-2 in the case. The trial court has forwarded the evidence recorded and the report and other papers marked as Exts. Cl and Cl(a) to this court as directed by this Court. 10. In the report the opinion expressed by DW-2 is thus: "The person who wrote the blue enclosed standard signatures stamped and marked A1 and A2 most probably also wrote the red enclosed questioned signature similarly stamped and marked Q 1." The opinion so expressed is prima facie against the case of the appellant. DW 2 had also noted that there exist 10 similarities between the admitted signature and the disputed signature. He has also given certain reasons in support of his opinion. During the lengthy examination of DW-2 by the learned counsel for the appellant- defendant, he had attempted to bring out that DW-2 was impeded from coming to a definite conclusion regarding the identity of the signature because of absence of sufficient number of standard signatures. To a definite question put to DW-2 that if as a matter of fact sufficient number of standard writings were proved to him he might have probably come to a different conclusion, DW-2 has answered that in that case, it would have been sometimes possible for him to come to a definite opinion. The attempt of the learned counsel through out the examination of DW-2 was to bring out that before expressing his opinion he has not examined the individual writing characteristics and general writing characteristics which are the most essential aspects to be examined before coming to a definite opinion about a disputed signature and as such the opinion given is totally unreliable, discrepant and inconclusive. Learned counsel for the appellant has also vehemently submitted before us that Ext. C1 report submitted by the Expert cannot be relied upon as a report submitted after a due examination of all the relevant aspects required to be examined before submitting such a report referring to various decisions and authoritative text books. Learned counsel has in fact advanced various contentions to discredit the opinion expressed in the report and to avoid the adverse legal effect of the report which was one secured by the appellant himself. Learned counsel has in fact advanced various contentions to discredit the opinion expressed in the report and to avoid the adverse legal effect of the report which was one secured by the appellant himself. We do not think that it is necessary for us to advert to all such arguments in this case since we are not specifically relying upon the opinion in question to base our findings on the issue regarding due execution Ext. Al. For, in our view, the other evidence available on record and discussed by the trial court and referred to by us are more than sufficient to come to a conclusion that the promissory not sued upon is one duly executed by the appellant. The only purpose for which we have adverted to the report and the evidence of DW-2 is to indicate that the opinion expressed by DW-2 may not also go against the case pleaded and established by the plaintiff by other independent evidence. Even if, all the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the reliability and acceptability of the report and evidence of the Expert are accepted, it would only help the appellant to avoid the adverse legal effect of Ext. C1 report. It may not help him to establish his case. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has also not relied so much on the report of the Expert and the opinion expressed therein to establish the case of the plaintiff. In this context, it is apposite to remember that while there can be no doubt that the opinion of the handwriting expert is admissible in evidence under S.45 of the Evidence Act, the value to be attached to it in a given case is an entirely different matter. There is no hard and fast Rule governing the matter. But this much is certain viz; it is after all an experiential opinion of an expert well versed in the subject and for that very reason it must always be received with great caution. It can rarely if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. There may be cases when the opinion of a handwriting expert may come handy for the court in coming to a conclusion as to the genuineness of the disputed signature when there is no substantive evidence. It can rarely if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. There may be cases when the opinion of a handwriting expert may come handy for the court in coming to a conclusion as to the genuineness of the disputed signature when there is no substantive evidence. But in such cases before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see that it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by clinching substantive evidence. But the position is quite different when the execution of the disputed document is witnessed by independent witnesses as in the instant case (PWs. 2 and 3) who had actually seen the defendant signing the disputed document (Ext. A1) in which case, the opinion of the expert is relegated to the background rendering it not necessary to rely on the same. So long as the substantive evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 remains unshaken, it is superfluous to refer to or rely on the evidence of DW-1, the opinion of the handwriting expert. As such an elaborate consideration of the various aspects argued by the learned counsel for the appellant based on the characteristics of handwriting, pen pressure, pen hold, size, alignment, movement, speed, spacing, slant, shading etc are in our view, unnecessary. We would leave the matter there.' 11. Apart from all these considerations, the conduct of the defendant also assumes importance in this case. He had no hesitation to say that he did not sign the summons served by the process sever. But the process server has submitted a report before the court to the effect that he had personally served the summons on the defendant and obtained the signature. The defendant has stated that he did not receive the notice from the court. But the endorsement made by him on the notice will show that he has in fact accepted summons and copy of the plaint. His conduct in executing Exts. A5 and A6 documents on 2.4.1986 after receiving notice of attachment of the properties covered by Exts. A5 and A6 on 1.4.1986 will certainly show that he is a person who has no respect for law. The lawyer notice sent to him evidenced by Ext. A4 is returned with the endorsement'refused'. At the same time, he has no hesitation to say that notice was not taken to him by the Postman. 12. A5 and A6 on 1.4.1986 will certainly show that he is a person who has no respect for law. The lawyer notice sent to him evidenced by Ext. A4 is returned with the endorsement'refused'. At the same time, he has no hesitation to say that notice was not taken to him by the Postman. 12. Incidentally it has to be observed that this is a case where presumption under S.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is available to the plaintiff as she had adduced documentary evidence to prove the payment of money. That being so, the burden is on the defendant to rebut the presumption available to the plaintiff which has not been done. That apart, the defendant has not produced any document which he undertook to produce before the trial court, viz. document to show that he was having sufficient funds in the bank(s) during the relevant time. The substratum of the defendant's case having been knocked down by the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with the evidence of the handwriting expert (DW-2) and Exts. A2, B5 and B6 and Ext. C1, we are of the view that the appellant is not entitled to succeed in this appeal and the decree passed by the trial court is liable to be confirmed. For all the above reasons, we confirm the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismiss the appeal with costs throughout.