A court may compare handwriting under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act without requiring expert testimony, provided there is sufficient circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

BIPIN GUPTA, J.

1. The present second appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree dated 08.09.1998 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal (Decree) No.22/1998, whereby, the appeal preferred by the present appellant was rejected and the decree dated 20.03.1998 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jodhpur for recovery of amount of Rs.22,100/- along with interest @18% was confirmed.

2. The plaintiff-respondent herein had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.22,100/- contending therein that the plaintiff had agreed to purchase a plot from Jagdamba Graha Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Sahkari Samiti’) for consideration of Rs.1,30,000/- on 19.08.1983. Part amounts were deposited by him with the Samiti and the receipts of the same were given. In the year 1991, defendant was the President of the Sahkari Samiti and demanded Rs.15,000/- for the purpose of executing the registration deed of the plot. The defendant received Rs.15,000/- from the plaintiff and issued a ‘Kucchi’ receipt and assured that printed receipt of the Sahkari Samiti will be given to him.

3. Subsequently, when the printed receipt was not given to the plaintiff, he inquired regarding the same from the Sahkari Samiti wherein he was informed that no such amount has been deposited in his name. On this, the plaintiff demanded the money from the defendant who assured that he will return back the same. However, he did not return back the amount and therefore, the plaintiff issued a notice on 01.03.1994 to the defendant of which no reply was received and thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount along with interest @18% per annum. The original amount was Rs.15,000/- and the interest up to the date of filing of the suit was Rs.7,100/-. Therefore, a suit was filed for recovery of Rs.22,100/- with a claim of future interest @ 18% per annum.

4. The defendant in his written statement averred that no such amount was received by him from the plaintiff for depositing with the Sahakari Samiti. Further, notice was also not received by him. Since no amount was given by the plaintiff to the defendant therefore there was no question of depositing such amount with the Sahkari Samiti. He therefore asserted that no cause of action has arisen and the suit had been filed on false and frivolous grounds. He prayed that the same may be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court :

6. The learned Trial Court decided issue no.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no.2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no.3 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no.4 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.5 was decided in favour of plaintiff. Issue no.6 was decided against the defendant and on the basis of the finding of issues, the suit of plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated 20.03.1998.

7. The defendant being aggrieved of the same preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 08.09.1998 and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.03.1998.

8. Thereafter, the defendant preferred the present second appeal which was admitted on 19.11.1998 and the following substantial questions of law were framed :

“(1) WHETHER the judgment of the First Appellate Court was liable to be set aside on the ground that it did not frame points for determination as per provisions under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC?

(2) WHETHER the