Skip to content


Rajmal Vs. Islam Mahomed - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 123 of 1954
Judge
Reported inAIR1958Raj6
ActsEvidence Act, 1872 - Sections 47
AppellantRajmal
Respondentislam Mahomed
Advocates: C.C. Kasliwal, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
.....service on part-time basis as these tests are required to be applied for deciding the status of a person rendering the services on full-time basis. since persons may be engaged for part-time work for various reasons, while deciding the question whether a person rendering services on part-time basis is a workman or not, the nature of the industry, the nature of services being rendered by the person, the terms and conditions of engagement and various other factors will have to be taken into consideration before coming to the conclusion whether such a person falls within the definition of workman under section 2 (s) of the i.d. act. sometimes looking to the nature of the establishment and its activities, the employer may need the services of a person only for a few hours in a day...........compare them with those entered in his bahi. he, therefore, did not express any opinion as if by a person acquainted with the handwriting of the executant, but attempted to play the role of an expert, which he was not. the second person also did not say at once that the signatures on ex. 1 were those of the defendant, but came to state that there was a difference between the signatures on ex. 1 and those in his bahi, but later, after further examination to more light, came to state that they were similar. he again, therefore, did not express any opinion as if by a person acquainted with the handwriting of the executant, but attempted to play the role of an expert. the lower court was, therefore, right in rejecting their evidence.6. in respect of other witnesses certain criticism has been.....
Judgment:

Bapna, J.

1. This is a revision against a decision of the Civil Judge of Jhalawar in appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 137/-.

2. The petitioner had Instituted a suit on the basis of a bond dated 10th April, 1950, in which the defendant had agreed his indebtedness to be Rs. 213/-, and after mentioning payment of Rs. 43/- had agreed to pay the balance of Rs. 170/- by instalments of Rs. 10/- p.m. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 75/- on account of principal and Rs. 62/- by way of interest.

3. The defendant denied having any dealings with the plaintiff or having executed the document or making any payment.

4. The trial Court, after evidence, gave a decree to the plaintiff, but on appeal that decree was set aside, and the suit was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff has come in revision,

5. Learned counsel has raised one questionof law, viz., that two witnesses Basantilal and Motilal who had been produced to identify the handwriting of the defendant were brushed aside by the appellate Court on the ground that they were not experts. It was contended that under Section 47 of the Evidence Act, the evidence of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom a particular document was supposed to be written or signed was relevant and admissible. The question of law raised does not admit of any doubt.

The evidence of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the executant of a document is relevant and admissible. In the present case, how-ever, Basantilal did not say straight off that the signatures on Ex. 1 were those of the defendant, but he proceeded to compare them with those entered in his Bahi. He, therefore, did not express any opinion as if by a person acquainted with the handwriting of the executant, but attempted to play the role of an expert, which he was not. The second person also did not say at once that the signatures on Ex. 1 were those of the defendant, but came to state that there was a difference between the signatures on Ex. 1 and those in his Bahi, but later, after further examination to more light, came to state that they were similar. He again, therefore, did not express any opinion as if by a person acquainted with the handwriting of the executant, but attempted to play the role of an expert. The lower Court was, therefore, right in rejecting their evidence.

6. In respect of other witnesses certain criticism has been levelled by the learned Civil Judge, while discussing their evidence. The matter is only one of appreciation of evidence.

7. This revision has no force, and is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs as the opposite party has not put in appearance.


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