BHOORI Vs. THAKUR GULAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal in a money suit.

(2.) THAKUR Ehoor Singh, father of the respondents, instituted a suit against Mst. Bhoori, widow and heir of Pt. Madho Prasad, for recovery of Rs. 2061/6/- on the allegations that the deceased used to obtain loan from the plaintiff, and as a result of accounting on 23rd January, 1945, the deceased acknowledged his indebtedness to the plaintiff at Rs. 1525/-, and agreed to pay the amount within one year, but that if he would not do so he would pay interest at 1 per cent, per annum. It was pleaded that Madho Prasad died, and the property was in the possession of Mst. Bhoori as also one Shyam Sunder alleged to be the adopted son of Madho Prasad, and the suit was instituted against both the defendant. Shyam Sunder denied his adoption or having anything to do with the property of madho Prasad. Mat. Bhoori also did not admit the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff had produced the khata Ex. 1 dated 23rd January, 1945, which was the basis of the suit as also its earlier khata Ex. 2 dated 1st March. 1941, for Rs. 1432/ -. Certain letters alleged to have been written by Madho Prasad Exs. 3 to 8 were also produced. The parties led evidences. The trial Court was of opinion that the signatures on Ex. 1 had been traced from the signatures on Ex. 2, and the khata Ex. 1 was a forgery. An entry of credit of rs. 20/- on Sawan Budi 10, St. 2000 (15th July 1944) was held to have been interpolated from Sawan Budi 10 St. 2002, corresponding to 3rd August, 1945, which was again taken to be an indication that the khata Ex 1 of 23rd January, 1945, was not in existence, otherwise the amount would have been credited to that account. The trial Court accordingly dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge was of opinion that the alleged tracing of the signatures had not been proved by any evidence, and the similarity of the signatures was too slender a data for the Court to come to that conclusion. He held the discrepancy in the Samwat with relation to the deposit of Rs. 20/- as having be n explained by the fact that the entry at the total of credits in Ex. 2 had been proved to bear the signatures of Madho Prasad, and the interpolation was thus only a correction. The learned District Judge set aside the decree of the trial court end passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the amount claimed. The defendant has com? in second appeal.

(3.) IT was urged on behalf of the defendants that the signatures and writing alleged to be of the debtors on Exs. 1 and 2 exactly coincided, and Ex. 1 should be presumed, to be a forgery. It Was urged that the first) appellate Court should not have brushed aside the opinion of the trial Court and that in any case the changing of the year from St. 2002 to St. 2090 in respect of the credit entry of Rs. 20/proved the subsequent concoction of Ex. 1.