Chopra, J. - (1.) THIS is a regular first appeal from the decree of the Sub -Judge First Class, Patiala dismissing the Plaintiffs' suit.
(2.) THE Plaintiffs were Ramji Dass and his son Ram Lai. They con tended that the Defendant - firm Mangal Sain kirpa Ram through Kupa Kam, who was one of the owners and partners of the firm bought silver and raised leans from Rodu Mal deceased and Kanji Dass Plaintiff on two occasions, that the transactions v/ere evidenced by a - tries made in the account book of Rodu Mal and Ramji Dass and that the Defendant -firm owed to Rodu Mal and Ramji Dass a sum of Rs. 9500/ -, Rs. 7000/ - being the price of the silver and the principal amount of loan raised and Its. 2500/ - being interest at the rate of Re. l/ - per cent P.M. They further contended that Rodu Mal was dead and that Ram Lai had joined Ramji Dass as a Plaintiff in the suit, because he was adopted .by Rodu Mal and was his heir. The Defendants joined issue with the Plaintiffs on almost all the points raised by them. They denied that Rodu Mal and Ramji Dass carried on any joint business. They also denied that the defend dantftrm bought any silver or raised any loan from Rodu Mal and Ramji Dass or agreed to pay any interest thereon. In addition they denied the right of Ramji Dass or Ram Lai to maintain the suit. The trial Court framed as many as six issues. They were, whether Kirpa Ram Defendant as copartner of firm Mangal Sain Kirpa Ram executed the, document in question in favour of Rodu Mal 'Ramji Dass, whether the documents were without consideration, whether Ram Lal was adopted by Mm Rodu Mal deceased and had 'locus standi' to sue, whether the Plaintiffs could sue without obtaining a succession certificate, whether Kishori Lal son of Mangal Sain who was alleged to be the partner of the Defendant -firm was liable and whether Plaintiff Ramji Dass had the right to sue. So far as the execution of the entries and their consideration are concerned, the trial Court found them in the Plaintiffs' favour. The issue regarding the succession certificate was left undecided. On other issues the trial Court held that neither Ramji Dass was proved to have been carrying on a joint busi Ness with Rodu Mal nor was Rum Lai proved to have been adopted by him. In the result the Plaintiffs' suit was dismissed and the parties were left to bear their own costs. Before dealing with the questions that the trial Court has decided against the Plaintiffs, I may here mention that the Respondent's counsel challenged the findings of the trial Court as regards the execution of the entries upon which the suit was based The entries are two in number and are written in Lande character. The first relates to Rs. 6000/ - which is made up of Rs. 5873/2/ - representing the prior of 8 silver slabs that the Defendant firm is alleged to have bought from Rodu Mal and Ramji Dass for Rs. 5873/2/ - at the rate of Rs. 125/ - per hundred to as, and Rs. 126/14/ -alleged to have been taken in cash. The second entry related to Rs. 1000/ - which according to the Plaintiff, Kirpa Ram borrowed in cash from Rodu Mai and Ramji Dass. The Plaintiffs allege that both the entries were written by P. W. Radha Krishna who is the brother of Ram Lal Plaintiff and Kirpa Ram appended a note below each of them in which he acknowledged having borrowed Rs. 6000/. - in the first case and Rs. 1000/ - in the other case and also noted the rate of interest that he had agreed to pay. Both the notes according to the Plaintiffs were signed by Kirpa Ram. Kirpa Ram denied having made or signed the above notes. To prove these entries the Plaintiffs examined Baru Ram, Dhana Ram and Radha Kishan and put themselves also in the witness box. Baru Ram and Dhana Ram were merely. chance witnesses. Neither of them had signed nor attested . the entries. Accordingly they were both disbelieved by the trial Court and in our opinion correctly. It was on the basis of the evidence of other witnesses supported as it was by the evidence of K. a. Puri handwriting expert examined by the Plaintiffs that the lower Court held that the execution of the entries was fully proved. In rebuttal the Defendant firm examined Shanti Sarup handwriting expert and one Kinden Lal. Kundan Lal merely deposed that he was acquainted with the handwriting of Kirpa Ram because he had been seeing him write and he gave the opinion that the parts of the entries which were alleged to be in Kirpa Ram's handwriting did not appear to him to be genuine. The learned Sub Judge had discussed the evidence of both the experts at length and has ultimately come to the conclusion that the evidence of K. S. Puri and the reasons given by him for taking the view that the disputed parts of the entries were written and signed by Kirpa Ram, are entitled to more weight. After hearing the parties' counsel at some length we are inclined to think that the view taken by the Subordinate Judge is correct, but even if we hold that it was not safe to attach any value to the opinion of the handwriting expert of the Plaintiffs our own opinion is that a comparison of the signatures under the disputed notes which purport to be those of Kirpa Ram, with his genuine signatures, makes us think that they are quite similar. As regards the evidence of Radha Kishan who is without doubt the writer of the principal entries, it is no doubt correct that he is the son of one Plaintiff and the brother of the other, but this can not be a reason for discarding his evidence, particularly so when it is not even alleged that either the present Plaintiffs or Rodu Mal had any kind of ill will with the Defendant firm, or there could be any motive on their part to make a false claim against them. We asked Kirpa Ram who was ore -sent in Court to explain why the Plaintiffs had gone to the length of forging the entries and making him falsely liable for the amount in question, but he was unable to give any explanation.
(3.) THE other Important fact that need be mentioned in this connection is that according to Kirpa Ram the business that he -had been doing had failed and he had been jobless for a number of years and if he was right in this there could hardly the any incentive for the Plaintiffs to take the risk of dragging him to Court on the strength of false & forged entries. . For all these reasons we hold that the entries in question were executed by Kirpa Bam on behalf of the Defendant -firm and he agreed to pay interest as mentioned therein. it was admitted by the Respondent's counsel that no evidence has been examined by his client to prove that the entry was without consideration. on the other hand we have the evidence of Radha Kishan writer of the entries that at the time of the first entry Kirpa Ram bought silver and Rs. 126/14/ - in cash and at the time of the second entry he was given Rs. 1000/ -. Accordingly we over -rule the Respondent's counsel's objection regarding issues Nos. 1 and 2 and hold that they were decided in the Plaintiffs' favour correctly.;