Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Jaipur City, dated 23rd June, 1955.
(2.) THE plaintiffs instituted a suit on the basis of a bond alleged to have been executed by Ramnarain for himself and his father Bhagtawara, the two being defendants in the suit. THE recital in the bond, that is khata, was that a sum of Rs. 252/- in cash had been received for the purpose of paying off creditors and for household expenses. In the plaint the case set up by the plaintiffs was that there were old dealings between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and an account thereof was made up by the defendants, and the khata was executed by Ramnararain for himself and his father. THE two defendants denied the execution , of the khata. THE finding of the learned Judge was that Ramnarain did execute the khata and Bhagtawara was not liable thereon. As regards Ramnarain, he was also not held liable because no money had been advanced admittedly by the plaintiffs, although recited in the khata, and the plaintiffs failed to prove any previous accounts which may have shown any indebtedness of Ramnarain in consideration where of the khata may have been executed. THE Judge accordingly dismissed the suit. In this revision, learned counsel for the applicants urges that the court having come to the conclusion that Ramnarain executed the khata, he should have given in decree against Ramnarain, because the defendants did admit certain old dealings with the plaintiffs, and it was urged in the written statement that only a few rupees were out-standing, and the claim in respect thereof had become barred by time. There is no doubt that the proof of execution of a bond proves the recital in the bond, but when the recital itself is said by the plaintiff to be wrong, and that the consideration was something else, the burden of proof changes. Learned counsel relied on Sandhura Singh vs. Kehr Singh (1) for the proposition that the plaintiff need not confine himself to the kind of consideration mentioned in the bond. This is true, but in the Lahore case the plaintiff was able to prove that although the recital in the bond was of the advance of cash, the real consideration was the settlement of old accounts. In the present case if the plaintiffs had produced their old accounts and proved them, they could have proved that the bond was for consideration, though it was other than what was stated in the bond. In the present case the plaintiffs contented themselves by production of the bond itself, and did not produce their old accounts. It could not therefore, be said that there was some other consideration than what was stated in the bond, and the one stated in the bond was on the admitted facts of the case not true. The lower court has come to a right conclusion, and the suit has been rightly dismissed. The revision fails and is dismissed with costs. . ;