BINDESHRY SINGH Vs. PERGAS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted for recovery of the amount due on two hand-notes, one for the sum of Rs. 100 and the other for Rs. 1460. The defendants liability on the hand-note for Rs. 100 was admitted, and in respect of that amount with interest the suit was decreed. We are not concerned with that hand-note.

(2.) For the claim on the hand-note for Rs. 1460, the defence was that on 30th Assin 1340, a hand-note had been executed for Rs. 460, and Rs. 325 had been paid in cash by which the plaintiff's dues on two hand-notes of 1338 had been satisfied. The defendants claimed that the amount payable under the hand-note of 1340 had been altered to Rs. 1460 and that the date had been altered to 1341. The plaintiffs endeavoured to prove the authenticity of the hand-note which they produced by proof of the existence of debts amounting to Rs. 1460 for which it was executed: but in this they failed; and the Courts have found that the hand- note on which the plaintiffs sued was the hand-note of Rs. 460 subsequently altered by the plaintiffs in such a manner as to amount to forgery. The trial Court dismissed the whole claim on this hand-note; but on appeal the Subordinate Judge allowed the plaintiffs claim for Rs-460 on the ground that the defendants had admitted that the sum was due and that by admitting the execution of the hand- note of 1340, they had proved that they had given a written acknowledgment of liability under the hand-notes of 1338.

(3.) The defendants appeal from that decision while the plaintiffs prefer a cross- objection against the findings that there had been alterations in the hand-note and that the debts amounting to Rs. 1460 had not been proved. Regarding the plaintiffs cross-objection, it may be said at once that these points are concluded by the findings of fact of the Court below and the questions cannot again be agitated in second appeal.