KISHANLAL Vs. MANGILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the plaintiff is directed against a Judgment and decree of the Court of Small Causes, Kishangarh, dated the 27th of April, 1949, dismissing his suit for recovery of Rs. 50/9/-

(2.) THE appellant brought a suit in the lower Court on the basis of a document dated 5. 2. 47 alleging that the defendant had under it borrowed from him a sum of Rs. 53/-, out of which Rs. 3/- was paid by him on 20. 2. 47, but the balance was not paid even after serving a notice upon him THE plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 50/-by way of principal and -/9/- for ex-penses incurred in serving the notice THE defendant admitted having take, a loan as alleged by the plaintiff, but he pleaded that the plaintiff had borrowed from him a sum of Rs. 361/-, cut of which Rs. 50 was deducted by the plaintiff in repayment of the plaintiff's debt, and the plaintiff had written a 'slip' to him for the balance, i. e. Rs. 311/ -. THE defendant, therefore, ascerted that he did not owe anything to the plaintiff He produced a document, exhibit D. I. dated 15. 4. 47, which is addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant, and in which it is written that the plaintiff borrowed from the defendant Rs. 361/-, out of which Rs. 50/- had been set off against the debt which the defendant owed to the plaintiff, and for the balance of Rs. 311/- a slip had been separately written, which would be taken back on paying the amount, and this document was purported to have been written by way of a receipt for the repayment of Rs. 50/ -. It was alleged by the defendant that this document, though written by the defendant himself, bore the signature of the plaintiff. THE plaintiff denied his signature on this document. THE trial Court relied on the evidence of the defendant and also compared the alleged signature of the plaintiff on exhibit D-1 with his other signatures on the record, and came to the conclusion that the signature on exhibit D-1 was in fact that of the plaintiff, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs. It may be stated here that the defendant had also produced one witness who was said to be the attesting witness to the document, but that witness also denied his signature on it, and the court below, after comparing his signature on the document in question with his other signatures, which were only on summons and other documents on the record, came to the conclusion that that signature was also of the attesting witness.