Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhagwati Prasad vs Amrit Lal on 6 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:43437]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 96/1997
Bhagwati Prasad s/o Shri Khem Raj
age 42 years, by caste Brahmin,
R/o Ladani, Tehsil Mavli,
district Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
Amrit Lal s/o Shobha Lal
by caste Suthar R/o Ladani,
Tehsil Mavli, district Udaipur.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Piyush Sharma for
Ms. Akshiti Singhvi
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment Reserved on :: 23/09/2025 Pronounced on :: 06/10/2025
1. The present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.1997 whereby the appeal filed by the present-respondent was allowed after setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.05.1992 and the suit was decreed for Rs.3,000/- along with interest of Rs.1,035/- total Rs.4035/- with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit.
2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a summary suit for recovery of Rs.4,035/- against the defendant-appellant contending therein that the defendant had taken a loan on 22.03.1984 for the purchase of land. A pronote Exhibit-1 and receipt Exhibit-2 were executed on the same date. The agreed rate of interest was (Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:58:31 PM) (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:41:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43437] (2 of 9) [CSA-96/1997] Rs.1.50 per Rs.100/- per month. However, neither the principal amount nor the interest was paid as per the terms of the pronote. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed the principal amount of Rs.3,000/- and interest of Rs.1,035/-, totaling Rs.4,035/-.
3. The defendant, after appearing in the suit, filed an application seeking leave to defend, which was granted. Thereafter, the defendant filed a reply denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that no loan amount was taken by him. It was further asserted that the pronote and the receipt did not bear his signatures. Since the plaintiff was having enmity with the defendant, therefore a forged document was prepared either by putting the signature by the plaintiff himself or by any other person and therefore, it was prayed by him that the suit be rejected.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-
1- ^^ vk;k oknh us izfroknh dks :- 3000@& fn- 22-3-84 dks tehu [kjhnus ckcr] jksdM+h fn;s] mlh fnu izfroknh us oknh ds i{k esa izksehtjh uksV fy[k gLrk{kj dj fn;sA mlesa C;kt dh "krZ 1-50 iS- izfr"kr izfr lSdM+k izfrekg Fkh tks oknh izfroknh ls izkIr djus dk gdnkj gSA
-----oknh 2- nknjlh ^^
5. The Trial Court decided issue No.1 against the plaintiff, and under issue No.2, based on the finding on Issue No.1, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.05.1992. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff-respondent preferred first appeal which came to be allowed by reversing the finding on issue No.1 by the first appellate Court and the suit was decreed for (Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:58:31 PM) (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:41:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43437] (3 of 9) [CSA-96/1997] Rs.4035/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit.
6. Assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.03.1997, the defendant-appellant preferred this second appeal in which the following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court on 14.07.1997:-
"(i) WHETHER first appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court without meeting the cogent and convincing reasons given by the learned trial court ?
(ii) WHETHER the learned trial court was legally justified to compare the disputed signatures on the pro-note Ex.1 and receipt Ex.2 with admitted signatures of the defendant-appellant on his written statement, on his Vakalatnama and on his deposition within the meaning of Sec.73 of the Indian Evidence Act, if so its effect?
(iii) WHETHER the finding recorded by the learned trial court about the forged signatures of the defendant-appellant on the pro-note Ex.1 and receipt Ex.2 after comparing the same with his admitted signatures on his written statement, on his Vakalatnama and on his deposition, which has not been reversed by the learned first appellate court shall be deemed to be affirmed, if so its effect?
(iv) WHETHER if the defendant-appellant has denied his signatures on the pro-note Ex.1 and receipt Ex.2, then it was incumbent upon the plaintiff-respondent to have examined an expert witness to prove the same and in event of his failure to do so, an adverse inference is to be drawn against him ?"
7. The present appeal is pending since 1997. Counsel for the appellant made his submissions, however no one was present on behalf of the respondents to oppose the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:58:31 PM) (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:41:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43437] (4 of 9) [CSA-96/1997]
8. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned first appellate Court committed illegality by reversing the finding of the learned trial Court. The trial Court categorically on the comparison of the defendant's signature on the alleged pronote and receipt with his admitted signatures on the written statement, Vakalatnama, and depositions concluded issue No.1 against the plaintiff. The appellant contended that the reasoning based on comparison of signature adopted by the trial Court was not set aside by the first Appellate Court. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court is contrary to the provisions of law.
9. It was also argued by counsel for the appellant that the burden of proving the signatures as those of the defendant was on the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff had utterly failed to prove the defendant's signatures on the pronote, even from the oral evidence. Therefore, the learned first appellate Court committed illegality in reversing the finding of the trial Court.
10. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that once the defendant had categorically denied the signatures on the alleged pronote and receipt, it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove the defendant's signatures on these documents by leading expert evidence. In the absence of such expert evidence, the learned first appellate Court wrongly reversed the finding on issue No.1. Lastly, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 27.03.1997 be set aside, and the judgment and decree dated 30.05.1992 be restored and suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:58:31 PM) (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:41:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43437] (5 of 9) [CSA-96/1997]
11. Having heard the counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the learned trial Court, based on the material evidence on record as well as the oral evidence, categorically recorded a finding that the plaintiff had utterly failed to prove the execution of the pronote and receipt by the defendant. Since the execution of the pronote was not proved by the plaintiff, the suit was rightly dismissed. While recording finding, the learned trial Court considered the contradictions in the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses. The plaintiff stated that an amount of Rs.3,000/- was given to the defendant outside the Tehsil Office Mawli, under the Neem tree. The plaintiff stated that the money was paid in the presence of Chunni Lal and Pema, and that this payment was made prior to the execution of the registry of the land for which the alleged loan was said to have been given. He stated ignorance regarding the differences in the signatures of the defendant on Exhibits 1 and 2. The other witness i.e. PW-2 stated that the amount of Rs.3,000/- was given to the defendant in his presence, but he did not recognize the defendant's signatures. Furthermore, he was unaware of the fact that who had signed Exhibits 1 and 2 after the documents were written. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no amount was paid in his presence.
12. Another witness, PW-3 Amrit Lal son of Roop Lal, who is the writer of Exhibits 1 and 2, stated that these documents were executed after the registry (contrary to the plaintiff's statement). The Court found that PW-2 denied that the amount of Rs.3,000/- was given in his presence, whereas the plaintiff had stated that the amount was paid in the presence of PW-2, Pema. Further, DW- 2, Chunni Lal, who is alleged by the plaintiff to have put (Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:58:31 PM) (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:41:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43437] (6 of 9) [CSA-96/1997] signatures on Exhibits 1 and 2, stated in his evidence that his signatures were obtained on these documents. He also made a statement that the plaintiff had asked him to sign the name "Bhagwati Prasad" on the documents, and therefore he had put the name of Bhagwati Prasad. This indicates that the documents were not actually signed by Bhagwati Prasad, but were either signed by Chunni Lal or someone else.
13. The learned trial Court, exercising its powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1872'), compared the signatures of the defendant on Exhibits 1 and 2 with those on various documents before the Court, including the written statement, Vakalatnama, and depositions. The Court found that not a single alphabet in Exhibits 1 and 2 matched the admitted signatures of the defendant. In light of above, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the suit.
14. The Appellate Court, merely on the ground that one of the witnesses, DW-2 Chunni Lal, admitted to have put his signatures on Exhibits 1 and 2, reversed the finding on issue No.1. However, there was a complete lack of proof regarding the defendant's signatures on the alleged pronote and receipt. In the absence of any cogent evidence proving that the defendant's signatures were on Exhibits 1 and 2, the reversal of the finding of the trial Court was incorrect. Since this Court has found that the learned first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court without addressing the cogent and convincing reasons given by the trial Court, as discussed above, this Court answers Question No.1 in the affirmative and holds that the learned first (Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:58:31 PM) (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:41:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43437] (7 of 9) [CSA-96/1997] appellate Court has wrongly reversed the finding without cogent and convincing reasons given by the trial Court.
15. Question No.2,3 and 4 particularly depends on the powers of the trial Court as available under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 73 of the Act is reproduced as under:-
"73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.-
In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person."
16. Section 73 of the Act clearly provides that a signature can be compared by the Court. The learned first appellate Court did not set aside the reason recorded by the learned trial Court that not a single alphabet matched. This Court has also examined the signatures on the alleged pronote and finds that not a single alphabet of the defendant's signatures on the pronote and receipt matches with the admitted signatures of the defendant on the written statement, Vakalatnama, and depositions. The learned first appellate Court, upon a mere visual examination, could have easily concluded that the signatures of the defendant on the alleged pronote and receipt do not, in any manner, match the signatures on the Vakalatnama, written statement, and other (Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:58:31 PM) (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:41:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43437] (8 of 9) [CSA-96/1997] documents submitted by the defendant. The learned first appellate Court did not take pain either to conduct a comparison itself or to record a finding contrary to that of the trial Court. This Court finds that the learned first appellate Court committed an illegality in reversing the finding on issue No. 1 without addressing or reversing the reasoning given by the learned trial Court regarding the comparison of signatures and conclusion there on.
17. Thus Questions No. 2, 3, and 4 are answered in the affirmative. It is held that the learned trial Court was correct in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 73 of the Evidence Act by comparing the signatures of the defendant on the alleged pronote and receipt with the admitted signatures. Furthermore, the learned first appellate Court did not counter the reasoning given by the trial Court and failed to address it in its judgment, this Court finds that the appellate Court was unable to invalidate the said reasoning. Consequently, once that reasoning is found to be not set aside, this Court answers Questions No. 2 and 3 accordingly and affirms the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on Issue No. 1, and sets aside the contrary finding recorded by the first appellate Court.
18. Since this Court has already decided Questions No. 1, 2, and 3 in the affirmative and in favour of the defendant, there is no necessity to decide Question No. 4 regarding the burden of proof or the requirement of expert evidence.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 27.03.1997 passed by the first appellate Court is hereby set aside, and the judgment and decree dated 30.05.1992 passed by the trial Court (Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:58:31 PM) (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:41:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43437] (9 of 9) [CSA-96/1997] is restored. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent stands dismissed.
20. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J 32-praveen/-
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 04:58:31 PM) (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:41:36 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)