Wanchoo, C.J.—This is a special appeal against the judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. The appellants are defendants mortgagees. A suit for redemption was brought by plaintiffs respondents. Their case was that a certain shop had been mortgaged by one Pratapmal and his sons with Roop Ram and Kaniram on Kartik Badi 13, St. 1917, for a sum of Rs. 451/-. The plaintiffs claimed to be successors-in-interest of the mortgagors along with certain others who were made pro forma defendants. They sued for redemption of the shop from defendants 1 to 5 who were successors-in-interest of the mortgagees. The suit had a chequered history, but it is enough to say that eventually the mortgage was held to be proved, and the trial court ordered redemption. There was an appeal by the defendants mortgagees, which was dismissed, and thereafter, there was a second appeal to this Court, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

3. The main case of the defendants mortgagees in second appeal was that the plaintiffs mortgagors had failed to prove the mortgage, set up, and, therefore, the suit for redemption should have been dismissed. It was urged on behalf of the defendants mortgagees that though the fact that they were mortgagees could not be challenged by them, the plaintiffs had failed to prove the terms of the mortgage, and the date on which it had been made.

4. In this connection, the trial court relied on an entry in an account book kept by the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs. That entry was proved by the statement of Chhaganmal, one of the plaintiffs, who stated that the entry was in the hand-writing of one Hirachand who was a munib in the employ of the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest, and that Chhaganmal was acquainted with the hand writing of the said Hirachand In cross-examination it was brought out that Hirachand had died in St. 1930 which is equivalent to 1873 A D. Chhaganmal himself said that he was born in St. 1949 (1892 A.D.) i.e. 19 years after the death of Hirachand. It was thereupon urged on behalf of the defendants mortgagees that Chhaganmal could not be acquainted with the hand-writing of Hirachand, and his evidence was not enough to prove that the entry in question was in the hand-writing of Hirachand.

5. The contention on behalf of the plaintiffs was that Chhaganmal had stated in examination-in-chief that he was acquainted with the hand-writing of Hirachand, and it was for the defendants mortgagees to cross-examine him on that point, and as the defendants mortgagees had failed to cross-examine him about that statement, it was not open to them to say that Chhaganmal could not be acquainted with the hand-writing of Hirachand, and had therefore failed to prove it. The plaintiffs were contending that it was for the cross-examining counsel to make out circumstances from which the court would infer that the witness was not acquainted with the handwriting, and that it was not for the counsel putting in the witness to get a statement from him to the effect that the witness was acquainted with the hand-writing. The learned Single Judge accepted this view put forward on behalf of the plaintiffs, and held that it was for the cross-examining counsel to bring out the circumstances from which it could be inferred that the witness was not acquainted with the handwriting of Hirachand, and that it was enough that the witness stated in his examination-in-chief that he was acquainted with the hand-writing. He held further that as the witness was not cross-examined on this point by the counsel for the defendants mortgagees, his statement that he was acquainted with the hard-writing stood and he must be held to have proved the entry in dispute. Learned counsel for the parties agree that if the entry is held to be proved, this appeal must fail, while if the entry is not proved, the appeal must succeed and the suit must be dismissed.

6. The contention on behalf of the appellants before us is that the learne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document