Skip to content


Muhammad Ahmad Khan Vs. Jai Chand Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930All709
AppellantMuhammad Ahmad Khan
RespondentJai Chand Lal and anr.
Excerpt:
- - i hold that the evidence was clearly admissible and the finding rests upon legal evidence......the suit against both defendants. the finding is clear and categorical and is couched in these terms:the evidence of the plaintiff convinces me that both the defendants borrowed rs. 85 from the plaintiff, that both of them executed and signed the promissory note in suit in urdu and that defendant 2 was not only an attesting witness as is alleged by him.3. it is contended that inasmuch as the defendant had put in the word 'witness' before his signature in urdu, the court, below was not justified in allowing oral evidence to prove that the money had been borrowed by both the defendants and that defendant 2 was one of the executants of the document and not a witness. no evidence has been adduced in this case at variance with the terms of the contract. the fact that the defendant put the.....
Judgment:

Sen, J.

1. The plantiff's suit was for recovery of Rs. 146 on a promissory note dated 15th June 1926, alleged to have been executed by the two defendants Ali Akbar and Mohammad Ahmad Khan. Defendant 1 did not contest his liability. Defendant 2 repudiated his liability altogether. He denied the execution and the receipt of consideration and averred that he was not the executant of the instrument but only an attesting witness and had signed as such.

2. The Court below overruled this contention and decreed the suit against both defendants. The finding is clear and categorical and is couched in these terms:

The evidence of the plaintiff convinces me that both the defendants borrowed Rs. 85 from the plaintiff, that both of them executed and signed the promissory note in suit in Urdu and that defendant 2 was not only an attesting witness as is alleged by him.

3. It is contended that inasmuch as the defendant had put in the word 'witness' before his signature in Urdu, the Court, below was not justified in allowing oral evidence to prove that the money had been borrowed by both the defendants and that defendant 2 was one of the executants of the document and not a witness. No evidence has been adduced in this case at variance with the terms of the contract. The fact that the defendant put the word 'witness' before his nose did not affect the contract, the terms of which are not disputed. Where evidence is adduced by the plaintiff that a person signing his name in the promissory note (a document which is not required to be attested) was one of the principal debtors and signed the document in evidence of his due execution, it would have been erroneous on the part of the Court below to rule out the evidence on the ground that it was not admissible under Section 92, Evidence Act. I hold that the evidence was clearly admissible and the finding rests upon legal evidence. The application for revision is therefore not tenable on any valid or reasonable ground. It is accordingly rejected with costs, including in this Court fees on the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //