A originally abtained loan from B who happens to be a relative of A, by signing blank pronote and handed over the same to B, later A repaid entire loan amount to B, but as B is his relative in good faith he did not demanded to return the pronote nor obtained receipt for repayment of the loan. after certain period B with an ulterior motive for illegal gain has handed over the blank pronote signed by A to C who is his friend and asked him to fillup the columns of pronote as if A obtained loan from C and furhter B signed as witness to the pronote and got issued a legal notice to A thorugh C claiming huge amount under the promissory note available with him, and though the said notice was received by the sons of A, they did not informed him aobut the said notice as such he could not issue reply notice to it. while matter stood thus C has filed a suit for recovery of money against the A, wherein the A filed his writtenstatement denying the any kind of relationship with C and further contended that the C is stranger to him and at any point of time he had no monetary transactions of whatsoever with him,and in the plaint C did not pleaded how he got acquiantance with the A and who introduced to him execpt claiming money under pronote, A further denied the receipt of the legal notice.
In trial C i.e plaintiff was examined as Pw-1, and B was examined as Pw-2 as attesting witness to the pronote.
Pw-1 during cross examination by counsel for A admitted that he has not mentioned in his plaint and chief affidavit that how he has got acquiantance with A and further stated that he has seen A only once at the time obtaining loan from him, and whereas in the plaint he stated that A approached him thrice once for obtaining loan, second time after two years from the date of pronote to discharge part of loan amount and third time again to discharge his part of liablity and his legal notice speaks about the same. and further Pw-1 i.e C failed to Identify the A when questioned when A was physically present in the court hall, at the time of cross examination and the same was recorded by the court.
In contra to the evidence of Pw-1, B deposed that A has paid part payments to C immediate after one month of execution of pronote and he was present on such two occassions with the A.
Thus from the above evidence A is prooved his case that C is stranger to him, but however the court decreed the suit in favor of Plaintiff on the ground that A has admitted his signatures on the pronote and he has failed to give reply to the legal notice of C.
Now my question is whether A can succeed in the appeal? if yes please quote me any suitable case laws in support of defendant A.