Proof of execution of a disputed promissory note failed where signature comparison lacked a proper evidentiary foundation.

The plaintiff, relying on a disputed promissory note allegedly executed by the deceased borrower, failed to prove execution after defendants specifically denied the signatures. The court held that, in the absence of reliable proof, the plaintiff could not obtain recovery on the basis of the instrument. It also found that the trial court wrongly relied on assumptions about signature identification and Section 73 comparison without first establishing admitted or undisputed signatures, and without independent corroboration or a sound basis for expert comparison. The finding on execution was therefore unsustainable, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff proved execution of the promissory note and entitlement to recovery of the suit amount.

Analysis: The suit was founded on a promissory note allegedly executed by the deceased borrower, whose execution was specifically denied by the defendants. In such a case, the plaintiff had the burden to establish execution by reliable evidence. The evidence of the plaintiff and the supporting witness did not provide a proper foundation for treating the signatures on the disputed promissory note as proved or admitted. The trial court had proceeded on assumptions about identification of signatures and comparison under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, without first establishing undisputed signatures or obtaining a legally sound basis for comparison. The absence of independent corroboration and the lack of any proper basis for invoking expert opinion or comparison rendered the trial court's finding unsustainable.

Conclusion: The execution of the promissory note was not proved, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff could not be sustained. The appeal failed.

---