Sube Singh vs Sumer Singh

Hemant Gupta, J.—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. 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 1 1/2% 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.

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. DW 2/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. DW 3/1 and DW 3/2. DW-4 Mushdi Lal identified the writings in the documents Ex. DW 3/1 and Ex. DW 3/2.

The learned trial Court noticed the fact that the statement of DW-2 that thumb impression in the bahi entry is not fit for comparison is not reliable as the expert produced by the plaintiff has examined the thumb impressions. The learned trial court examined the enlarged photographs of disputed thumb impression and specimen thumb impression with naked eye. It was found that ridges and lines can easily be compared without any difficulty. The Court found that the it cannot be said that thumb impressions are unfit for comparison. The Court also relied upon the oral evidence of the witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 to return a finding that the plaintiff advanced loan of Rs. 5400/- to the defendant payable with interest at the rate of 1 1/2%. Such finding has been affirmed in the appeal as well.

In the present second appeal, the defendant-appellant has not raised any substantial question of law. However, the learned counsel for the appellant sought to argue that the statement of the expert examined by the defendant has been disbelieved without any valid reasons. The evidence of the plaintiff is not that of the reliable witnesses.

In the present second appeal, the defendant-appellant cannot be permitted to raise an argument which is to dispute the findings of fact recorded by the Courts. The learned trial Court has examined the specimen thumb impressions and thumb impressions on the bahi entries and found it comparable. The expert produced by the defendant-appellant give his report that the thumb impressions cannot be compared. Therefore, the report of the expert produced by the defendant cannot be said to be of a reliable nature, when the Court has found the thumb impressions as comparable. Still further PW-3 and PW-4, the attesting witnesses of bahi entries, have supported the stand of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court has recorded finding of fact after considering the entire evidence. It cannot be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Such finding has been affirmed in appeal. The defendant-appellant cannot be permitted to dispute the findings of fact recorded in the present appeal.

I do not find any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in the present second appeal. Consequently, the present regular second appeal is dismissed.