JAGAT NARAYAN, J. —This is a revision application by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of money which was decreed by the trial court, but was dismissed by the appellate court.

2. The suit was instituted against Ranji, Parbhuj, and Mulji sons of Panaji on the allegation that they carried on business in partnership at Balotra in the name Ranji Panaji and had dealings with the plaintiffs beginning from Asad Badi 13, Smt. 2008 corresponding to 20.6.52. It was alleged that they purchased one bag of tobacco worth Rs. 90/- on that date and purchased 11 bags of tobacco 10 days later worth Rs. 2001/-. Further they were alleged to have made payments from time to time. An accounting took place between the parties on 26.10.54 when a debit balance of Rs. 462.8.0 was found against them for which a fresh Khata was executed by Parbhuji on behalf of the defendants on that date. Parbhuji was also alleged to have signed the debit and credit sides of the previous Khata.

3. According to the plaintiffs further payments were made by the defendants after that date and a balance of Rs. 389-15-0 remained outstanding against them on Kartik Badi 15, Smt. 201 r. The present suit was instituted for the recovery of this amount together with a sum of Rs. 44.4.0 as interest and Rs. 5-13-0 as notice charges.

4. All the three defendants contested the suit. They filed separate written statements. They denied that the business at Balotra in the name Ranji Panaji was partnership business of the three brothers. Their case was that there was no partnership between them and that they carried on their business separately. Ranji admitted that he had dealings with the plaintiffs in tobacco, but alleged that he never made purchases on credit. He denied the truth of the accounts of the plaintiffs. Parbhuji denied having signed the debit and credit sides of the previous Khata and having executed a fresh Khata on 26.10.54.

5. The plaintiffs produced all their account books in court including Rokars and Khatas for the relevant period. The trial court was satisfied that the accounts of the plaintiffs were true. [But it held that all the defendants were not partners in the business Ranji Panaji but that it was owned by Ranji alone. It was satisfied that the debit and credit sides of the previous Khata as well as the fresh Khata dated 26-T0-54 were signed by Parbhuji purporting to act on behalf of Ranji Panaji. On this finding the suit was decreed. Against this decree Parbhuji preferred an appeal. The learned District Judge held firstly that the execution of the fresh Khata dated 26.10.54 by Parbhuji was not duly proved and secondly that as Parbhuji purported to sign as an agent of Ranji Panaji the suit could not be decreed against him.

6. Another serious error committed by the learned District Judge was that he held that a person not knowing English or Sindhi himself could not prove that the writings in English or Sindhi were made by Parbhuji. Sec. 67 of the Evidence Act does not lay down any particular kind of proof for proving that a particular writing or signature is in the hand of a particular person. The fact that a particular person has written a particular writing can be proved by the direct evidence of those persons who have seen him making the writing on the particular document irrespective of whether or not they can read what was written. It has to be remembered that a document can be executed not only by affixing ones signatures, but also by making a mark on it. When a document bearing a thumb-mark of a person is proved it is not necessary that the person proving the affixation of the thumb-mark should be able to identify the thumb-mark. All that is required is that he should be able to identify the document on which he states that the thumb-mark was affixed. In the present case the documents on which Parbhuji was alleged to have made English and Sindhi writings were written in Hindi which all the witnesses, who came forward to prove the writings of Parbhuji, knew. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document