JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - The plaintiff petitioner instituted a suit for recovery of a certain sum of money alleged to be due on foot of an entry in the plaintiff's bahi which was alleged to have been executed by Waryam Singh, the original defendant. The entry was produced in Court and it purported to bear the thumb-impression of the debtor Waryam Singh and to be signed by two witnesses, Rikhi Ram and Sant Ram. Waryam Singh denied execution of the entry as well as receipt of consideration. Necessary issues were framed, but before the case was concluded Waryam Singh died and his heirs and legal representatives were substituted as defendants in his place. The Sub-Judge decreed the suit in full ordering that the decretal amount was recoverable only from the estate of Wary am Singh deceased. The defendants appealed to the Senior Sub-Senior urging two points: first, that execution of the entry in question had not been proved, and secondly, that proper opportunity had not been afforded to the defendants to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff. The learned Senior Sub-Judge has accepted the defendants' appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff has preferred a petition for revision to this Court and I have heard Mr. Faqir Chand on his behalf and Mr. Arjan Das for the defendants respondents.

2. The sole ground on which the learned Senior Sub-Judge has dismissed the suit is that the execution of the document has not been proved because the plaintiff, who is the alleged writer of this entry, did not enter on the document that he was its scribe and the attesting witness Sant Ram signed it without seeing the execution. In holding that on these facts the execution of the document was not proved the learned Judge has relied upon five rulings which are mentioned in his judgment. All these rulings, however, relate to cases decided in provinces where the Transfer of Property Act is in force. In four of them the question was whether the deeds in question had been executed and attested in accordance with the provisions of Section 59, T.P. Act, and in the fifth the document was a deed of gift which was required to be executed and attested in the manner prescribed in Section 123 of that Act. Now it is well known that the Transfer of Property Act is not in force in the Punjab and though the Courts of this province sometimes follow the equitable principles of common law which have been embodied in certain sections of the Act, it has been held over and over again that the technical rules contained in it cannot be relied upon by any litigant in this province. Reference may in this connexion be made to Teja Singh v. Kalyan Das Chet Ram A.I.R. 1925 Lah. 575 and Dula Singh v. Beta Singh A.I.R. 1925 Lah. 92 It is conceded for the respondent that deeds in this province need not be executed or attested according to the formalities required by the Transfer of Property Act. One of the rulings referred to by the learned Judge refers to Section 68, Evidence Act, but that section applies only to cases where a document is required by law to be attested. There is no rule of law in force in the Punjab which requires a bahi entry of this kind to be attested at all. Section 68 had, therefore, no applicability to this case. The Judge has, therefore, entirely misconceived the position and has acted with material irregularity in holding that execution is not proved.

3. As to the second point: Mr. Faqir Chand for the petitioner has conceded that the contesting defendants-respondents being minors are entitled to an opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal of the plaintiff's case. The case must therefore, be sent back to the trial Court for recording the defendants' evidence. As the case is going to be retried the parties may be given opportunity to prove or disprove that the thumb-mark on the bahi entry in question was that of Waryam Singh.

4. For the foregoing reasons I accept this petition for revision, set aside the decree of the learned Senior Sub-Judge