( 1. ) THIS appeal is against the decision of the Additional District Judge, Umaria, in civil suit No. 54 of 1954, decided on 30th December 1955. The plaintiff is the appellant whose suit for Rs. 5000/- against the two defendants failed in the Court below.

( 2. ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 5000/- was borrowed by the two defendants on the 15th June 1952. He produced in support of his case his own account books showing an entry to that effect. The defendants denied the loan and their case was accepted in the Court below.

( 3. ) IN this appeal the short question is whether the plaintiff had succeeded in proving his case. No doubt, the account books were produced, but the munim, who wrote them, was not examined. Under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, account books by themselves cannot be sufficient and therefore some other evidence was necessary. This evidence consists: of the plaintiff and of persons who were said to be present at the time the loan was given. The trial Court did not believe these witnesses. The first corroborating witness is a pan seller, Man Mohan singh (P. W. 1), who says: that he was called to the shop of the plaintiff at about 8 or 8. 30 in the night some two and a half years before his evidence, to bring six pans. He also says that he saw the plaintiff and Mohammad Hanif (defendant No. 1) seated there and that the plaintiff paid Rs. 5,000/- to him (Mohammad Hanif) in his presence. This evidence is altogether too artificial. For a pan-seller to remember an incident of this character for two and a half years is almost impossible. We do not say that he could not remember that some money was paid but for him to remember that he had to take six pans and that the persons present in the shop were such and such is indeed a feat of memory. His evidence has also been disbelieved in the Court below. He is described as a chance witness and indeed he is a chance witness.

( 4. ) THE next corroborating witness is Nizamuddin (P. W. 5) who says that he had gone to the shop of the plaintiff to offer his prayers and had stayed there afterwards. There is no reason why this witness should not have completed his prayers in his own house or at the mosque which is only 100 paces away from his house. There is nothing to show what special attraction the plaintiffs shop had for the purposes of offering prayers. No doubt, people do sometimes offer prayers if they are at the house of another, but we do not believe the statement of this witness that he went there for this purpose. He also names all the persons present and the exact amount which was paid. He recalls that it was a Sunday and that it was the month of Ashad. All this on such a chance visit leaves us in doubt whether he is not an artificial witness brought to bolster up a false case. We do not see anything in his evidence which would entitle us to accept his testimony when it has been rejected in the Court of first instance.

( 5. ) THE third corroborating witness Ram Kripal (P. W. 2) is a tenant of the plaintiff, and his statement is interested. According to him, he was seated in the shop of the plaintiff at 8 or 8-30 p. m. when Nizamuddin went there for the purpose of prayers and that Mohammad Hanif (defendant No 1) asked for Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff and it was paid to him by the plaintiff. He even remembers that Man mohan Singh (P. W. 1) came there with pans. He is a Sonar who lives in a portion of the plaintiffs house on a rent of Rs. 8/- per month. Neither his status nor his deposition inspires confidence.

( 6. ) INDEED, the entire evidence was duly considered by the trial Court and rejected. It is a kind evidence on which any claim of any man can be supported, and there would be no means on the part of the defendants to controvert it.

( 7. ) IT was, however, submitted that the defendants admitted in the witness-box that they maintained account books and that there was no entry in respect of this sum therein, and it was contended on the autho