Skip to content


Dhar and Co. Vs. Sib Narayan Singh and ors. and - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in59Ind.Cas.188
AppellantDhar and Co.
RespondentSib Narayan Singh and ors. and ;sib Narayan Singha
Excerpt:
execution of document - proof, method of--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 102--suit to recover price of coal, nature of--appeal, second. - .....not supplied coal in accordance with the agreement entered into between them. in the other suit, shib narain singh claimed rs. 229, annas 6 from dhar and co. being the balance of the price of coal supplied by the former to the latter.2. the court of first instance decreed both the suits. on appeal, the learned district judge dismissed the suit of dhar and co. and decreed the suit of shib narain singh.3. dhar and co. have appealed to this court in both the cases.4. in the first case, the learned additional district judge has held that as there was no direct evidence as to the signature of shib narain on the letter (exhibit 1), the suit must fail.5. no doubt, where an executant denies that he wrote a document, the ordinary mode of proving the execution is by calling some one who saw such.....
Judgment:

1. These two appeals arise out of two suits in one of which, viz., in Second Appeal No. 1466 of 1918, the appellants Dhar and Co. claim Rs. 500, odd, as damages from the defendant on the ground that the latter had not supplied coal in accordance with the agreement entered into between them. In the other suit, Shib Narain Singh claimed Rs. 229, annas 6 from Dhar and Co. being the balance of the price of coal supplied by the former to the latter.

2. The Court of first instance decreed both the suits. On appeal, the learned District Judge dismissed the suit of Dhar and Co. and decreed the suit of Shib Narain Singh.

3. Dhar and Co. have appealed to this Court in both the cases.

4. In the first case, the learned Additional District Judge has held that as there was no direct evidence as to the signature of Shib Narain on the letter (Exhibit 1), the suit must fail.

5. No doubt, where an executant denies that he wrote a document, the ordinary mode of proving the execution is by calling some one who saw such person write, or who knows his handwriting. But that is not the only mode in which it can be proved. For instance, in the present case there are several papers on the record which bear the admitted signatures of Shib Narain and the Court could have compared the signature on the letter with those signatures.

6. It has been pointed out to us that the judgment of the Munsif proceeded upon several grounds on the question whether the letter was written by Shib Narain, and none of those grounds have been taken into consideration by the lower Appellate Court.

7. In these circumstances, we think that the case (Second Appeal No. 1466) should be sent back to the lower Appellate Court in order that the question as to the genuineness of Exhibit 1 may be considered by it on the evidence on the record and the case disposed of according to law.

8. Costs to abide the result.

9. The other appeal (Second Appeal No. 1554 of 1918) arises out of a suit, as already stated, for recovery of Rs. 229, annas 6 being the balance of the price of coal supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant.

10. The suit being of the value of less than Rs. 500 is clearly of the nature of a suit cognizable by a Small Cause Court.

11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.


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