B.P.GRIYAGHEY, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment of 5th Additional Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, which was a suit for recovery of Rs. 32,215/- being the principal with interest thereon on the basis of a pro note (Ext.1) which was described as a document of acknowledgment with respect to certain past dues which after accounting and adjustment was found to have been Rs. 27,000.00 which was promised by that document to be paid with interest at the rate of 12 annas per cent per month.

2. The suit was originally brought by one Jagdish Prasad Mehra, who died during the pendency of this suit, and the present respondents were substituted in place of the original plaintiff. The case of the original plaintiff was that he had transactions with the defendant (the present appellant) and that on 2-4-1967 there was an accounting made of the transactions between the parties and Rs. 27,000.00 was found due on that date for which the defendant executed the document Ext.1), which was described as a document of acknowledgment. There was, however, a promise to pay the amount as soon as possible with interest at the rate of 12 annas per cent per month. It was further claimed that subsequent to that, on different dates the defendant made certain part-payments amounting to Rs. 2075/-, but the balance of Rs. 32,215/- remained to be paid, which the defendant did not pay in spite of demands. So, the suit was filed for the recovery of the same.

3. The pleas of the defendant, which were urged during the hearing of this appeal, were to deny the claim of the plaintiff that there was an accounting of the dues between the parties and that Rs. 27,000/was found due and that the defendant had executed any document in token of the same. It was pleaded that the document claimed by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated. In that connection it was pleaded that in the year 1967 the defendant had pledged some goods with the original plaintiff who had advanced Rs.7,000.00 to the defendant, and as security for that sum of money which was advanced, this defendant had put his signature on a blank piece of paper and had made over the same to the plaintiff. It was stated that the defendant had reason to believe that the said blank piece of paper has been changed into this forged document of acknowledgement on the basis of which the plaintiff has brought the suit. During argument the learned counsel for the appellant has also raised a point of law, namely, that the document (Ext.1), which is the basis of the plaintiffs suit, is a mere deed of acknowledgment, which cannot be the basis of the suit: but the basis of the suit could be the original loan, which the plaintiff ought to prove. It was further urged that this document Ext.1) is neither a handnote nor a promissory note and therefore the plaintiff cannot recover the amount on the basis of this document (Ext.1).

4. Therefore, the following points arise for determination in this appeal: (i) Is the document, (Ext.1), a genuine document or it is forged and fabricated? (ii) Are the plaintiffs entitled to recover the dues based on Ext.1? FINDINGS

5. Point No.1: The plaintiffs have undoubtedly to prove the genuineness of this document (Ext.1), because the defendant has pleaded that it is a forged and fabricated document. But, in view of the plea that has been taken by the defendant challenging the genuineness of this document setting forth a story that there was a transaction of pledging certain goods by the defendant to the original plaintiff and for the original plaintiff having advanced a sum of Rs.7,000.00 to the defendant, the latter had put his signature on a blank piece of paper and ; had made it over to the original plaintiff by way of security, and that the defendant believed that, that document has been used by the plaintiff as an acknowledgment deed (Ext.1), the plaintiffs onus to prove the execution of this document is not so heavy in the present case. One of