The onus of proving the execution of a document lies on the party who alleges it.

Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. This appeal is by the plaintiff from a decision of the Subordinate Judge dated 29-11-1950, reversing the decision of the Munsif dated 16-6-1950. The suit giving rise to the present appeal was founded upon handnote alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the Plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1275/-. The defence was a total denial of the allegations made by the plaintiff. The defendant denied that he had borrowed any sum from the plaintiff. As to the document purporting to bear his thumb, mark, the defendant offered an explanation of the circumstances in which he happened to place his thumb mark on it According to him, there was a panchaiti some years before the institution of the suit in which his thumb mark was taken on a blank piece of paper which was subsequently utilised by the plaintiff for the handnote sued upon. In short, he denied both the execution of the hand-note and the passing of consideration thereunder.

2. The learned Munsif believed the evidence of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge in a well reasoned and well-considered judgment upset the finding of the learned Munsif and held that the handnote was not genuine and for consideration. On this finding, he allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs suit with costs.

3. On the findings of the appellate Court, this appeal is concluded by findings of fact. Mr. K. K. Sinha appearing for the appellant, however, argued, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in _ the case of Sarju Pershad V/s. Jwaleshwari, AIR 1951 SC 120 (A), that the appellate Court bad not con sidered some of the reasons advanced by the learn ed Munsif for discarding the defence and accept ing the plaintiffs case. He pointed out that the appellate Court should not, in absence of compell ing reasons, discard the appreciation of the Mun sif of the oral evidence who had the opportunity to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and judge their credibility.

In this case, however, I find that the learned Subordinate Judge has considered the case from all aspects. All the circumstances which were pointed out to me relate mainly to the defence set up by the defendant. The learned Munsif on a consideration of those circumstances held that the defence propounded by the defendant was not true. Even assuming, though riot affirming, that this is true, the plaintiff cannot obviously advantage himself fay the weakness of the defence. The plaintiffs case must stand or fall upon the evidence adduced by him. The learned Subordinate Judge has carefully considered the evidence of the plaintiff and has given cogent reasons for rejecting it as untrustworthy. The grievance of Mr.K. K. Sinha is that in appreciating the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses, the learned Subordinate Judge was greatly influenced by the defence which, according to the appellate Courts observation, was correct. I do not think that this is correct. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge has taken care to consic.er the evidence of both the sides separately, and in judging the credibility or otherwise of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge, has not at all taken into consideration the demerits of the "defence witnesses. He has given cogent reasons for not relying upon the testimony of the appellants witness. He has also considered the facts which influenced the learned Munsif to come to a contrary decision.

4. Even with regard to the defence, I find, rightly or wrongly the learned Subordinate Judge has taken a view different from the view taken by the learned Munsif on all the points which were mooted before him. It was contended that there was one vital circumstance in the defence which was sufficient to demolish the case set up by the defendant. It is this. According to the evidence of D. W. 3, the document which, according to the defendant, was converted into the handnote, contains the thumb marks of both the defendant a