Chandanmal Vs. Rawatmal

.....from pressing into service the evidence of both the experts.;(b) civil procedure code - appreciation of evidence--district judge reversing finding regarding presence of g on basis of contradictory statements -improbabilities taken notice of--fact relied upon by district court in absence of such cross examination--held, conjectural consideration & misreading of evidence cannot be accepted.;the learned district judge in his judgment under appeal has not appreciated the evidence on record in the light of the principles of appraisal of evidence.;it is true that the burden of the plea of payment was on the defendant and it is the defendant who has to discharge the burden, still the respective versions of both the parties have to be simultaneously taken into consideration and after weighing the evidence, it is to be found as to whose version or case is truthful.;the learned district judge reversed the finding of she civil judge on the basis of the contradictory statements of ghawarchand kanmal & chandanmal regarding the presence of ghewarchand. it appears that the statement of chandanmal has been misread by the learned district judge.;from the manner in which the defendant's evidence has been considered and the improbabilities have been taken notice of, it would appear that instead of dealing with the evidence, the learned judge proceeded to determine the question on his own imagination.;in the absence of such cross-examination, it was wrong on the part of the district judge to observe that the defendant, a clerk of a lawyer cannot save so much money. further it has also not been put to the defendant as to on what does he bad what money any why he did not pay off the money which he had collected so as to reduce the burden of interest.;the learned district judge has also failed to consider as contended by shri parekh that normally the whole writing could not have been forged. the forgery is generally made of the signatures. instead of considering the other.....cases referred: roop kishore v. jug raj, ilr (1953) 3 raj 988; bench decision of andhra pradesh high court in balaswaraswami varu v. mallidi dorayya, air 1972 andh pra 250; kesho ram v. board of revenue, u. p., allahabad, air 1972 all 360; k. veerabasappa v. court of district judge at chitradurga, air 1970 kant 40; bhopal sugar industries ltd. v. income-tax officer, bhopal, air 1961 sc 182; sarju pershad ramdeo sahu v. jwaleshwari pratap narain singh, air, 1951 sc 120; keshulal v. ram dayal, 1960 raj lw 595; sumermal v. hukma, 1964 raj lw 7; state v. bhola singh, air 1969 raj 219disposition: appeal accepted