Ram Autar Shukul vs Baldeo Shukul

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 1st Katrik 1332 purporting to be for a sum of Rs. 400 and the other dated 15th 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.

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.

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.

When the suit came up on appeal before the learned District Judge he sent the hand-notes to the Master, Security Printing India, Nasik, for an expression of opinion as to the date of the stamps affixed on the two hand-notes. A reply came from that officer, and the learned District Judge used the opinion expressed in it as one of the grounds for holding that the hand-notes were tampered with and after the scrutiny of the two hand-notes and on a consideration of the oral evidence held that in the first hand-note the words and figures of Rs. 40 had been converted into Rs. 400 and in the second the words and figures of Rs. 25 had been converted into Rs. 225. He did not however reverse the finding of the learned Munsif about the payment of Rs. 65, but held that under the circumstances of the case the plaintiff was entitled to no decree and dismissed the plaintiff''s suit.

It has been conten3ed before us by Mr. Das that the letter of the Master, Security Printing India, not having been formally proved, and the plaintiff not having been given an opportunity of cross-examining him thereon, ought not to have been taken in evidence. In our opinion this contention is well founded, and the finding of the learned District Judge based upon the opinion contained in that letter must be discarded. This does not however conclude the appeal.

The learned advocate contends that inadmissible evidence having been used in coming to a finding about the tampering of the hand-notes, it is impossible to say to what extent the learned District Judge was influenced by that inadmissible evidence. We therefore u/s 103, Civil P.C., as it now stands, examined the hand-notes and the evidence ourselves in order to come to conclusions about their interpolation or otherwise. We have carefully examined the two hand-notes, and there is no doubt left in our minds that the contention of the defendant is well founded. (After describing the alterations the judgment proceeded). This apparent change of words and figures in both the hand-notes cannot be held to be accidental, and in our opinion the learned District Judge came to right conclusions in this respect. We have examined the evidence of the plaintiff''s witnesses who have come to prove execution of the two hand-notes and have considered the reasons given by the learned District Judge for disbelieving them. The reasons are sound, and we agree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned District Judge.

A question arose whether the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for the admitted loan of Rs. 65 the plea of payment having been disbelieved by the learned Munsif and not having been believed by the learned District Judge. But in this respect also in our opinion the finding of the learned District Judge is correct

Having come to Court with tampered handnotes the plaintiff is not entitled to any decree as was held in the case of Dula Meoh Vs. Moulavi Abdul Rahaman, . The same principle seems to have been laid down in an earlier case of Gour Chandra Das v. Prasanna Kumar Chandra [196] 33 Cal. 812.

The result is that this appeal is dismissed with costs. Any proceeding for the prosecution of the plaintiff which might have been taken in consequence of the learned District Judge''s orders will now proceed in the usual course without undue delay.