Dave, J.—This is a first appeal by the defendant Birbal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Ganganagar, dated 30th April, 1952.

2. The facts giving rise to it are that on the 1st March, 1950, two of the respondents viz. Thammansingh and Sherbahadur brought a money suit for Rs. 7,400/- on the basis of two bonds Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2, in the court of the Civil Judge, Ganganagar. The other two respondents Thakursingh and Kartarsingh were impleaded as defendants. On the 20th March, 1950, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 pre-sented an application to be transposed as plaintiffs. That application was allowed by the Court and show they were transposed as plaintiffs. The only defendant then left was the present appellant Birbal. Birbalss reply in the trial court was that both the documents on which the suit based were not executed by him and that they were without any consideration. It was further pleaded that the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiffs was penal, that the suit suffered from the defect of multifariousness, that it was time-barred and therefore it should be dismissed. The trial court framed the following five issues:

(1) Whether the documents, Ex. P-l and P-2 sued upon were executed by defendant Birbal and he is liable to pay their amount?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to bring the suit for the whole amount?

(3) Whether the suit was not maintainable since the claim was founded on two documents and therefore, there, was defect of multifariousness?

(4) Whether the suit was time-barred?

(5) Whether the interest claimed was penal and if so, what rate of interest the plaintiffs were entitled to get?

All the issues were decided by the trial court against the defendant and the entire suit for Rs. 7400/- was decreed with costs.

3. Appellants learned advocate has abandoned the objection about the multifariousness of the suit in this Court. He has questioned the correctness of the decision of the trial court only on the remaining four issues.

4. The first point for the consideration of this Court, therefore, is whether Ex. P-l and P-2 were executed by the appellant and whether they were without any consideration. It appears from the record of the trial court that the plaintiffs examined P.W. 1 Mangilal, who is the scribe of both the documents, and also P.W. 2 Nanuram and P.W. 3 Partap Singh who are attesting witnesses of both the documents. P.W. 1 Mangilal has stated that both Ex P. 1 and P. 2 were written by him at the request of the appellant Birbal and that he had affixed his thumb impression on both of them in his presence. He further says that he had read out both the documents to the appellant and the appellant had admitted that he was liable to pay Rs. 1500/- and Rs.2200/-for both the documents. Similarly P. W. 2 Nanuram and P. W. 3 Pratap Singh have stated that the appellant had admitted before them that he owned an ancestral debt obtained by his father from the respondents for Rs. 1500/- that he had further borrowed Rs.2200/-from the respondents for his sons marriage and that the appellant had affixed his thumb impression on both the documents in their presence. The witness further says that the documents also bear their thumb impressions. All the three witnesses were cross-examined at leant by appellant but their evidence has remained unshaken. One of the plaintiffs vis. Thakursingh has also appeared in the witness-box and he has also stated that both the documents were executed by the defendant and that they were with consideration.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the statement of Thakursingh on the ground that in his examination-in-chief he has stated that Rs. 2200/- were given in cash to the defendant on the same day on which the document for that sum was executed. It is urged that the document itself shows that Rs.2200/- were not given in cash on the day of its execution and therefore, no reliance should be placed on this witness. It is contended that this on the other hand shows that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document