A party who alleges the existence of a contract has the burden of proving it.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the District judge, Anantapur, in O. S. No. 6 of 1951, a suit fired by the appellant to recover a sum of Rs. 29,264-0-8 from the defendants.

( 2 ) THE defendants are the partners of a firm carrying on business under the name and style of "s. Lakshminarayana Chetti, V. Hanumanthayya Chetti, Thimmancherla. " The plaintiff is a businessman residing at the same place. The plaintiffs case is that the 1st defendant, on behalf of the firm, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 19-7-1947 to buy 2000 bags of coriander seeds, each bag containing 40 seers at Rs. 28-10-0 per bag and to take delivery of the same on or before 30-10-1947. Alleging that the defendants denied that they entered into any such, contract with the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of damages being the difference between the contract rate and the market rate.

( 3 ) THE defendants denied that they entered into any agreement with the plaintiff either on 19-7-1947 or on any subsequent date to buy 2000 bags or any quantity whatsoever of coriander seeds or any other goods.

( 4 ) THE learned District Judge, on a consideration of the entire evidence placed before him, came to the conclusion that the defendants did not enter into the alleged contract with the plaintiff. On that finding, the suit was dismissed. Hence, the appeal.

( 5 ) THE only question in this appeal is whether tie defendants entered into a contract with the plaintiff on 19-7-1947 to buy 2000 bags of coriander seeds. Ex. A-1 is the alleged contract. It purports to be a contract form of the defendants firm duly filled up embodying the terms of the suit contract. Appended to the document are the signatures of the 1st defendant as a buyer and the plaintiff, as a seller. It is dated 19-7-1947. P. W. 1, the plaintiff, says that the document was written by some clerk of the defendants firm and was signed by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant as D. W. 2 denies that he executed Ex. A-1 and states that the handwriting is not that of his clerk. The clerk, who is alleged to have written this document, has not been examined. The evidence of the plaintiff and that of the 1st defendant discloses that they were on bad terms during the crucial period and that there was also litigation between them which was taken up to the High Court. The evidence of P. W. 1, who is obviously an interested witness, cannot, therefore, be accepted unless it is corroborated by other evidence or supported by convincing and probabilising circumstances.

( 6 ) EX. B-2 is one of the admitted forms of contracts maintained by the defendants. A comparison of the ink and print found in Exs. A-1 and B-2 indicates that Ex. A-1 is not one of the forms printed by the defendants for their use. There is obvious difference in the ink used and print in both the forms. While Ex. B-2 shows a clear perforation at the top indicating that it was removed from the contract form book, Ex. A-1 does not disclose a clear perforation but only a clumsy attempt to make it appear that there is such perforation.

( 7 ) A comparison of the signature of the 1st defendant in Ex. A-1 with those found in Exs. B-4 to B-10 brings out the clear differences between the two. While the admitted signatures are in a Free and flowing hand, the disputed one appears to be a labored and constrained one. D. W-2 says that in his signature ordinarily there will be spacing between the first two letters and the third letter and that the final two letters are written one over the other. In the admitted signature, the first two letters are written over one another and there is spacing between the 2nd letter and the 3rd letter whereas it is not so in the case of the disputed signature. In this case, we have not had the advantage of a Handwriting Expert scrutinizing the signatures and giving his opinion on the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed signature. This