1. This is a revision application arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff under A. R. R. against the defendants for the recovery of Us. 253-2-0, Rs. 175 principal and the rest as interest, on the basis of a bond executed by the defendants in favour of the father of the plaintiff on 7th Phagan 1960. The case for the plaintiff was that the defendants executed the bond, for Rs. 1100 in favour of the father of the plaintiff and agreed to pay back the amount by yearly instalments of Rs. 25. The defendants paid 11 instalments, i. e., upto the year 1971 and no further instalment was paid till the date of the suit. The plaintiff giving up the instalments which were time barred filed the suit for instalments which were within time i. e., for Rs. 175 together with the interest upto the date of suit. The defendants Nizam Din and Ahmad Din pleaded that they had an old account with the father of the plaintiff and were made to execute a document without settling any account by the plaintiffs father, They knew nothing as to how much was found due from them. If the old accounts were gone into it would be found that they had paid much more than was actually due from them. Mehar Din, one of the executants of the suit bond had died and his son Gulab Din one of the defendants, did not appear and exparte proceedings were taken against him by the trial court. Imam Din another executant of the suit bond also had died and his widow admitted the claim of the plaintiff and agreed to pay her share. The trial court considering the evidence adduced by the plaintiff found that the execution of the suit bond and the passing of the consideration mentioned therein was not proved by the plaintiff. His suit was therefore dismissed. The plaintiff has come up in revision to this court.

2. The counsel for the plaintiff petitioner has argued at length before me that the defendants had admitted the execution of the bond and also that as the bond was 30 years old it ought to have been presumed that it was executed by the persons whose signatures or thumb impressions appear on it; that the passing of the consideration also was fully proved by the plaintiff and the trial court was not right in dismissing his suit. This is a peculiar case. The suit bond was executed in the year 1960 for Rs. 1100 by four persons, two of whom are dead. The sum of Rs. 1100 had to be paid according to this bond in 44 years. The plaintiffs father, who was a money lender, agreed to receive the amount mentioned in the bond without interest in 44 yearly instalments. This generous attitude of the money-lender itself creates a feeling that the transaction is a colourable one and free from suspicion. Besides according to the plaintiff 11 instalments were paid by the defendants and after that no instalment was paid. The plaintiff never took the trouble of demanding the instalments due for nearly twenty years. The defendants Nizam Din and Ahmad Din did not admit their liability nor did they admit the execution of the suit bond. They did state that they were made to execute a document but that does not mean that they admitted the execution of the suit bond. Exparte proceedings were taken against Gulab Din, Mst. Mandan widow of Imam Din, alone admitted her liability. But her admision does not prove the execution of the suit bond nor does it in any way make the other defendants liable. The suit bond bears the signatures of four persons Anant Ram, the scribe and three other marginal witnesses. Out of these four persons Anant Ram and Kashmiri are dead. As regards the remaining two persons Baghrai and Chaba, it is not known whether they are living or are dead. If they are dead there is no mention made by any witness to that effect, and if they are living they have not been produced. The plaintiff Sukhram himself, who is 44 years old, has not come forward to depose how the amount was due from the defendants. He has produced his Mukhtar who is about 22 years old and can depose nothing about this transac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document