RAM AUTAR SHUKUL Vs. BALDEO SHUKUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of Rs. 1,055-12 0 based on two hand-notes: one dated 1 Katrik 1332 purporting to be for a sum of Rs. 400 and the other dated 15 Aghan 1332, purporting to be for a sum of Rs. 225. The defendant admitted having borrowed from the plaintiff Rs. 40 on the first occasion and Rs. 25 on the other. He however alleged that these sums were paid up.

(2.) The defendant's case was that he signed and put thumb impressions on blank pieces of papers specifying the amounts which he had borrowed on each occasion in the signature portion of the respective hand-notes and that the body of the hand-notes was not written at that time. His case was that the plaintiff changed the words and figures of Rs. 40 of the first hand-note and the words and figuros of Rs. 25 of the second hand-note into Rs. 400 and Rs. 9.25 respectively and got the bodies of hand-notes written to tally with those changes.

(3.) The learned Munsif who tried the suit, found against the defendant holding that there was no alteration in either of the two hand-notes. He disbelieved the story of payment and consequently decreed the plaintiff's suit. The first hand-note purporting to be of Rs. 400 has two stamps of one anna each affixed to it, The signature and the acknowledgment of the debt in the handwriting of the defendant is on one of these two stamps; the other one has simply been crossed, The second hand-note has one stamp of one anna and on that is the signature of the defendant.