MAHILA BAI KOKILA BAI Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second appeal filed by widow (sic)of the original Plaintiff and is from judgment and decree dated 14 -10 -50 of the (sic)Judge, Bhind, affirming the judgment decree of the Civil Judge, Second Class, whereby he dismissed the Plaintiff's The suit was based on a bond dated 28 -2 -1938 which purported to be on behalf of, and was alleged to have been, executed by two brothers, Ram Singh and Gokul Singh, Respondents in this appeal. The execution was denied by both and an issue about it was framed. The trial Court tield that when the document was executed by Ram Singh the other brother Gokul Singh was not present but afterwards the Plaintiff put some thick inkspot on the document and marked it as the thumb impression of Gokulsingh Respondent. Taking the instrument as a forged one, it dismissed the entire suit and the First Appellate Court concurred in the finding and upheld the dismissal of the suit.

(2.) AS the concurrent findings of the two Courts below rest upon abundant evidence, on facts, there could be nothing substantial to be said and the counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Bhagwan Das Gupta, therefore strenuously argued that if the execution of the bond by Ram Singh was proved, a decree ought to have been passed against him. In my opinion this contention is not tenable. If the suit had been based not on the bond but on the original consideration and had this been proved and if the Courts below had not come to the conclusion, that the thumb impression of Gokul Singh was forged I would have certainly followed - Narsinghdas Agrawala v. Shaik Bhartoo : AIR 1931 Cal 472 (A) in remanding the case for retrying it against Ram Singh Defendant alone. In the present case the suit is however based only on the bond in dispute and it seems to me that if the Plaintiff recovers at all, it must be on the basis of this bond and as it bears a forged thumb impression of Gokul Singh I should be disposed to follow the rule laid down in - Laduram v. Banshidhar : AIR 1937 Pat 572 (B) that no decree could be passed in favour of the Plaintiff.

(3.) THE rule of the English Common Law was laid down in 'Pigot's case',, (1614) 11 Co. Rep. 28 (F), that a deed is void when it is altered in a point material. That was only as regards a deed, but the rule so laid down was extended in -Master v. Miller, (1791) 4 Term Rep. 320 (G) to instruments not under seal. The entire case law on the point was reviewed by the Court of Appeal in - Suffell v. Bank of England, (1882) 9 QBD 555 (H), where at p. 561 Sir George Jessel M.R., cited with approval the following passage from the judgment of Grose J. in Master v. Miller, (G) :