Ram Autar Shukul v. Baldeo Shukul

Khaja Mohamad Noor and Dhavle, JJ.:— (after Stating the facts set out above, examined the evidence under section 103, Code of Civil Procedure, and, agreeing with the conclusions of the District Judge, held that the hand-notes were tampered with and then proceeded as follows):

A question arose whether the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for the admitted loan of Rs. 65, the plea of payment having been disbelieved by the learned Munsif and not having been believed by the learned District Judge. But in this respect also in our opinion the finding of the learned District Judge is correct. Having come to Court with tampered hand-notes the plaintiff is not entitled to any decree as was held in the case of Dula Meah v. Moulavi Abdul Rahaman. The same principle seems to have been laid down in an earlier case of Gour Chandra Das v. Prasanna Kumar Chandra.

The result is that this appeal is dismissed with costs. Any proceedings for the prosecution of the plaintiff which might have been taken in consequence of the learned District Judge's orders will now proceed in the usual course without undue delay.

Appeal dismissed.