The court emphasized the importance of expert testimonies, the burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the lack of evidence to support the defendants' claims.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. Unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the present Civil Appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.8.1979, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jind, who, allowed the appeal of the defendant by setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant, with costs throughout.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.11.1974 Shri Prem Chand plaintiff advanced a cash loan of Rs. 4,000/- to Shri Chandgi Ram deceased, predecessor in interest of the defendants and in token thereof said Shri Chandgi Ram executed the Bahi entry Ex.P1 in favour of the plaintiff. The rate of interest settled was Rs. 1-9 Anna per cent per month. Chandgi Ram did not make any payment. Hence the suit.

3. Chandgi Ram died during the pendency of the suit and his L.Rs were substituted as defendants.

4. The defence taken by the L.Rs. that Shri Chandgi Ram never took any loan from the plaintiff nor executed any Bahi entry.

5. From the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

-

1. Whether the deceased Chandgi, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants executed bahi entry in dispute for consideration? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is abated as alleged in preliminary objection No. 1 ? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is a money-lender ? If so, its effect ? OPD

4. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

5. Whether the proceedings are liable to the stayed under Haryana Agricultural Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1975? OPD

6. Whether the defendants are entitled to pay the decretal amount, if any, in instalments; if so, how much? OPD

7. Relief.

The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff while issues No.2 to 5 and 6-A were decided against the defendants. The trial Court allowed the defendants to make the payment of the decretal amount by instalments.

6. Not satisfied with the judgment and decree dated 10.2.1978, passed by the trial Court, the defendants filed the first appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Jind who vide the impugned judgment and decree accepted the appeal of the defendants and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed for the reasons given in paras No. 7 to 17 of its judgment which are reproduced as under:-

-

"7. On issue No. 1, the plaintiff in order to prove that there was due execution of the entry by Chandgi, examined : PW1 Shri Sugan Chand Handwriting and Fingerer Print expert. PW2 Ram Lal Process-Server PW3 Suraj Bhan Scribe of the entry PW4 Prem Chand The plaintiff.

8. PW2 Ram Lal deposed that he had effected the service of the summons in this case Ex.P8 on Chandgi and obtained on it his thumb impressions. This thumb impression Ex.P.3 was made the basis of comparison with the thumb impression alleged to be of Chandgi and existing on dispued bahi entry Ex.P.1 Shri Sugan Chand Gupta, Expert says that he made this comparison and found the two of one and the same person.

9. The plaintiff and the scribe too deposed to the execution as was expected of them.

10. As against this the defendants, besides leading other evidence, got the disputed thumb impression examined by the expert in the Finger Print Bureau, Madhuban. The Expert from the Bureau Shri Ram Dhan was examined on commission by the Senior Sub Judge, Karhal. This expert was of the opinion that the thumb impression marked S (Ex.P.3) on the summons was sufficiently ink smudged and did not permit of comparison in its ridge characteristic details with the thumb impression on the disputed entry Ex.P.1, which too was partly ink smudged. He concluded that in view of this position no opinion could be given. Report of the Expert is Ex. D.A. Enlarged photographs prepared by Shri Sugan Chand Gupta Expert of the plaintiff, were shown to this witness and he said that the points on these enlar