High CourtsDivision Bench(1930) 05 PAT CK 0009

Sahdeo Mauar vs Pulesar Nonia

Patna High Court · Decided on 30 May 1930 · Citation: AIR 1930 Patna 598

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ross, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 320 words

Ross, J.—This is an application by the plaintiff who brought a suit in the Small Cause Court on a hand-note. The learned Judge dismissed the suit. He held that the thumb-mark on the hand-note was so indistinct that it had not been possible to have it compared even on photographic enlargement and had that there was no reason to think that the thumb-mark on it was that of the defendant and that the defendant''s explanation that he had been induced by the malik long ago to give on a blank paper his thumb-mark would not lead to an inference that the hand-note in suit had that thumb-impression.

2.

In my opinion the learned Judge was in error in looking at the case in this way. It does not appear from the order-sheet that any attempt was made to have the thumb-impression examined or compared with that of the defendant. But apart from this the defendant in his written statement, while denying that he had signed or made thumb-impression upon any hand note, admitted that he had put his thumb-impression on a blank piece of paper upon which it was intended that a kabuliyat should be written out and that this may be the thumb-impression and paper which had been utilized for this hand-note.

3.

This is a clear admission that the hand note on which the suit is brought bears the thumb-imoression of the defendant, otherwise the statement about the blank piece of paper and the hand-note is wholly irrelevant.

4.

In these circumstances the burden of proof was on the defence to explain how this document bearing the defendant''s thumb-impression came into existence. There has therefore not been a proper trial of this suit and the decree must be set aside and the suit remanded for retrial. Costs of this application, hearing-fee one gold mohur, will depend on the final decree, and will be disposed of by the Court-below.