SUBE SINGH Vs. SUMER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court on 20.01.1988 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent claiming a sum of Rs. 8,275/- along with future interest at the rate of 6%. The appeal against the said decree was dismissed on 01.02.1992.

(2.) The plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs. 8,275/- on the basis of entry in the Bahi dated 17.10.1981. It was asserted that a sum of Rs. 5400/- was borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff to be returned along with interest at the rate of 11/2% per month. Since the amount was not paid, the plaintiff filed the present suit. The defendant denied availing of any loan from the plaintiff and alleged that Bahi entries are bogus and procured fraudulently and also pleaded that defendant is a marginal farmer and his income is not more than Rs. 1200/- per annum. Therefore, the present suit is not maintainable.

(3.) In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, Baldev Singh, Handwriting Expert, as PW-2, Sish Ram, witness of the bahi entry, as PW-3 and Dalip, another witness of the bahi entry, as PW-4. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW-1, Sh. R.P. Singh, Finger and Hand Writing Expert, as DW-2 and examined two other witnesses DW-3 Raghbir and DW-4 Mushdi Lal. The plaintiff produced bahi entry Ex.P1 and deposed that it was executed by the defendant in the presence of witnesses Sish Ram and Dalip. The plaintiff also proved notice Ex.P2, the postal receipt Ex.P3 and A.D. Ex.P4 in respect of the notice served on the defendants to claim the amount. Baldev Singh PW-2 deposed that thumb impression in bahi leaf is similar to that of specimen thumb impressions of the defendant. PW-3 Sish Ram and PW-4 Dalip supported the stand of the plaintiff that they were the witnesses when bahi entry was executed by the defendant at the time of availing loan. On the other hand, the defendant examined DW-2 Sh. R.P. Singh, Finger and Handwriting Expert, to prove report Ex.DW2/A, who deposed that the thumb impressions in the bahi are not comparable with the specimen thumb impressions. DW-3 Raghbir was also examined who deposed that a sum of Rs. 5000/- was borrowed from the plaintiff but he returned the loan amount in the year 1983. He produced bahi entries Ex.DW3/1 and DW3/2. DW-4 Mushdi Lal identified the writings in the documents Ex.DW3/1 and Ex.DW3/2.