Bapna, J.—This is a second appeal by the contesting defendants in a suit for redemption. The respondents Nos. 1 to 5 sued the appellant on the allegations that a certain shop described in the plaint was mortgaged by Pratapmal and his sons Chhotmal and Jethmal with Rupram and Kaniram. on Kati Vadi 13, Smt. 1917 for a sum of Rs. 451/-. It was stated that the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 6 to 38 were successors-in-title to the mortgagors, and defendants Nos. 1 to 5, who are now appellants, were the successors-in-title to the mortgagee. The appellants denied the fact of the mortgage and the fact of the plaintiffs being the successors-in-title to the mortgagors claimed to redeem the same. The trial court dismissed the suit on 2nd March 1944 but the case was remanded for a fresh trial on appeal, and after re-trial the suit was decreed. The contesting defendants being successors-in-title to the mortgagees filed an appeal which was dismissed.

2. The finding that the shop was mortgaged by Pratapmal, Chhotmal and Jethmal with Roopram Kaniram was based on certain entries of the Bakiyat Department of the Government of Jodhpur. The property of Pratapmal was taken possession of by the State but on representation by Kaniram, the rent of the shop collected by the State was paid over to him on the ground that he was a mortgagee of the shop. The genuineness of these documents being established, learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the status of the appellants as mortgagees but he urges that that fact alone will not entitle the plaintiffs to a decree unless they can establish that there was a subsisting mortgage on the date of the suit. It was urged that there was no proof that the mortgage was made on Kati Vadi 13, Smt. 1917 and that it was for Rs. 451/-. The lower court relied upon Ex. P/A-6 which was an entry in the account-book kept by the ancestor of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the evidence of Chhaganmal P. W. 4 relied upon by lower court as having proved the entry is not sufficient for the purpose. The evidence of Chhaganmal is that the said entry is in the pen of one Heerachand who was a munim in the employment of the plaintiffs ancestor and that he was acquainted with the handwriting of said Heerachand. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in cross-examination the witness admitted that Heerachand had died in Smt. 1930 long before the witness was born and, therefore, he could not possibly identify his handwriting and the conditions laid down in S. 47 of Indian Evidence Act before a person can be said to be acquainted with the handwriting of the scribe-are not fulfilled. Learned counsel for the respondents urges that the witness had made a statement in examination-in-chief that he was acquainted with the handwriting of Heerachand and it was for the defendants to test by cross-examination in what manner he became acquainted with the handwriting of Heerachand and since all the methods in which that witness could make himself acquainted with the handwriting of Heerachand had not been exhausted in cross-examination, his evidence should be held to be sufficient to prove the document. Reliance was placed on Shankerrao Gangadhar vs. Ramji Harjivan (I.L.R. XXVIII Bombay, 58). With great respect I agree with the view of law taken in this case, and when the witness had stated in his examination-in-chief that he was acquainted with the handwriting of Heerachand, it was for the defendants to show by cross-examination that the witness was really incompetent to testify under sec. 47 of the Evidence Act. It was urged by learned counsel for the respondents that the admission of the fact that Heerachand died long before the witness Chhaganmal was born excluded possibilities mentioned in the explanation for becoming acquainted with the handwriting of Heerachand. He could not see him write nor could he have exchanged correspondence, nor could documents be submitted to him habitually in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document