The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove handwriting and signatures under the Evidence Act, emphasizing the various methods of proving signatures and the importance of expert evidence, witness testimony, and court comparison.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30. 7. 1996 in Civil Suit No. 44-B/1992 by Ilnd additional District Judge, Sidhi, dismissing the suit of plaintiff/appellant for recovery of loan amount.

( 2 ) UNDISPUTABLY the plaintiff No. 1 is the father of plaintiff No. 2. The suit for recovery of loan amount advanced to him was brought against Gulab Singh, who died during the pendency of the suit. The respondents herein were substituted as legal representatives of gulab Singh, after his death.

( 3 ) THE case of plaintiff/appellant was that the defendant Gulab Singh was his intimate friend. On the request of defendant Gulab singh, the plaintiff on 26. 10. 1983 advansed him loan of Rs. 15,0007- as also 35 khandis' of paddy. It was agreed that the defendant gulab Singh would pay interest @ Rs. 2/- per month on the cash amount of Rs. 15,000/-, and @ 20% per annum on the loan of paddy. Two promissory notes were executed by the defendant Gulab Singh in favour of plaintiffs. The defendant Gulab Singh executed one of the promissory notes for Rs. 10,000/- in favour of plaintiff No. 1, while the other promissory note was executed by him for Rs. 5,000/- and 35 khandis' of paddy in favour of plaintiff no. 2. The defendant Gulab Singh did not repay the loan despite the request of plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs served him with a notice dated 9. 4. 1985. Since the defendant Gulab singh failed to repay loan as above, the suit was filed for recovery thereof with interest.

( 4 ) THE defendant Gulab Singh filed his written statement denying the allegations as above. It was denied by him that loan as alleged by the plaintiff was taken by him. He therefore, averred that there was no question of repayment thereof. It was also pleaded by the defendant that there was dispute of land between him and the plaintiff No. 1, as the latter had got the defendant's land mutated in favour of his son the plaintiff No. 2, on the basis of a forged gift deed. The defendant Gulab singh raised objection regarding the said mutation. Tahsildar on the admission made by the plaintiff No. 2 rejected the application for mutation on the said land in favour of defendant gulab Singh. Appellant bore grudge with the defendant on account of above dispute and had forged the documents alleged to be the promissory notes. He had denied that the said documents of alleged loan bear his signature.

( 5 ) THE learned trial Court framed issues as to whether the plaintiff had advanced loan of Rs. 15,000/- and 35 khandis' paddy to the defendant, and as to whether the defendant had agreed to pay interest @ Rs. 2/- per month on cash amount of loan; while @ 20% per annum on the loan of paddy. Both the above issues were decided against the plaintiff/appellant and it was held that the loan was not advanced and the Documents Ex. P-1 and ex. P-2 alleged to be the promissory notes were not executed by the defendant. Accordingly, the suit of plaintiff was dismissed.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for appellant submitted that the document Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 evidence that the loan was advanced by the plaintiffs to the defendant. The said documents have been duly proved by the plaintiffs by oral evidence by examining himself as also Shiv prasad (P. W. 2), the attesting witness of the said documents. Therefore, there was no reason as to why the evidence documentary as well as oral, should not have been believed. It has further been submitted that as there was no evidence in rebuttal against the said evidence, the plaintiffs/appellants were entitled to get a decree for recovery of loan advanced by them to the defendant Gulab Singh.

( 7 ) AS against this, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has submitted that the defendant Gulab Singh while he was alive, had in his written statement denied the averments of the plaintiff regarding the advancement of loan and also his signature on the documents Ex. P-l and Ex. P-2. Therefore, it was obligatory on the pa