Proof of signature of a document does not extend to proof of genuineness of contents. Contents of document must be proved by examining the author or scribe.

MISHRA, J.

1. The plaintiff-first-respondents suit to recover a sum of Rs. 15,396/- with interest has been decreed by the trial court and affirmed by a learned single judge of this Court in appeal. The first-defendant-judgment debtor has preferred this appeal on various grounds.

2. According to the case of the plaintiff, the two defendants in the suit, who were related to him, borrowed on 20.9.1975, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of hand loan for the purpose of their business carried on under the name and style of Raju Engineering Works in Pappanaickanpalayam. The defendants agreed to repay the same with interest thereon at 17 per cent per annum, but defaulted. They also borrowed another sum of Rs. 2,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.10.1975, for which the plaintiff reserved his right to take a separate suit. Defendants, however, denied the plaintiffs claim that they borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- promising to repay the same wit interest thereon at 10 per cent per annum. According to the defendants, the first-defendant borrowed only once from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 29.12.1971 under a promissory note and by deposit of title deeds in respect of his house property. Towards the said loan, the first-defendant paid a sum of Rs. 2,800 between 1971 and 1973. These payments were endorsed in the pocket note-book of the first-defendant. In 1974, a further sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid and endorsed on the promissory-note In 1975, a cheque for Rs. 2,000/- was issued to the plaintiff by the second-defendant. But the plaintiff did not encash the same, nor returned the cheque. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was paid in cash to the plaintiff and another sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid subsequently. A further sum of Rs. 1,000/- was also paid in 1977 and endorsed on the promissory-note. Excepting the said debt incurred on 29.12.1971, the defendants had not incurred any loan from the plaintiff. The defendants also denied that they had borrowed another sum of Rs. 2,000/- on 10.10.1975.

3. It is indeed a case in which while there is an acknowledgment of a debt of Rs. 10,000/- incurred on 29.12.1971 under a promissory-note and by deposit of title deeds in respect of a house property and discharged in part by the defendants, so tar as the alleged loan dated 20.9.1977 is concerned, there is a categorical denial by the defendants. In the situation as above, in the trial of the issue whether the defendants borrowed on 20.9.1975 a sum of Rs. 10,000 the burden of proof lay upon the plaintiff. A reference to the facts of the case in the judgment of the court below shows that the plaintiff admitted to have advanced a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 29.12.1971 to the first-defendant under a promissory-note and also taken his document of title as security and that several payments were made towards the said promissory-note by the defendants. On that basis, however, when it was urged on behalf of the defendants that when the plaintiff had chosen to lend a sum of Rs. 10,000/-only under a promissory-note after taking security by way of deposit of title deeds, it was difficult it to believe that the plaintiff had orally lent a sum of Rs. 10,000/- four years later. The learned judge referred to a letter purported to be in the letter head of the defendants company, allegedly signed by the first-defendant for the said company, viz., Ex. P4. This letter, if true, shows an acknowledgment of the debts incurred by the first-defendant and his wife the second defendant on 20.9.1971 as well as the debt of Rs. 2,000/- on 10.10.1975, with which we are not concerned. The letter, it appears, had been put to the first-defendant during the cross-examination, when he was in the witness box and he admitted his signature in this document. There had, however, been a re-examination, in which re-examination, the first defendant denied his signature. It is, however, found that the contents of the document (Ex. A4) are not in the name of first-defendant. There is no evidence to show that the