Judgement Consolidated Appeals (Nos. 34, 35, 36 of 1925) from a decree of the High Court (January 28, 1920) which substantially affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Agra, and from two decrees of the High Court (March 13, 1916) respectively reversing and varying decrees of the Subordinate Judge. The suits giving rise to the consolidated appeals related to the liability of the appellant in respect of certain bills of exchange either drawn or accepted by one Babu Lal. The judgment states the facts sufficiently for this report, which is in respect only of the statement of the rule as to concurrent findings after a full reference in argument to previous decisions of the Board. 1926. May 11, 13. Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the appellant. The findings that Babu Lal had authority to draw and accept bills of exchange do not come within the rule of the Law Rep. 53 Ind. App. 268 ( 1925- 1926) Bhagwan Singh V. Allahabad Bank, Limited 133 Board as to concurrent findings, since the trial judge arrived at his finding on the oral evidence whereas the Appellate Court rested its finding upon the effect of the letters. [Reference was made to Rungama v. Atchama (( 1846) 4 Moo. I. A. 1, 111.) ; Mudhoo Soodun Sundial v. Suroop Chunder Sirkar (( 1849) 4 Moo. I. A. 430.) ; Tayammaul v. Sasachalla Naiker (( 1865) 10 Moo. I. A. 429, 436.) ; Tareeny Churn Bonnerjee v. Maitland (( 1867) 11 Moo. I. A. 318, 339.) ; Valloo Chetty v. Soorjah Chetty (( 1877) L. R. 4 I. A. 109.) ; Venkateswara Iyan v. Shekhari Varma (( 1881) L. R. 8 I. A. 143.) ; Harihar Buksh v. Uman Parshad (( 1886) L. R. 14 I. A. 7, 15.) ; Ram Lal v. Mehdi Husain (( 1890) L. R. 17 I. A. 70.) ; Umrao Begam v. Irshad Husain (( 1894) L. R. 21 I. A. 163.) ; Moung Tha v. Maung Pan Nyo (L. R. 27 I. A. 166.) ; Ram Anugra v. Hanuman Sahai (L. R. 30 I. A. 41.) ; Kunwar Sanwal Singh v. Satrupa Kunwar (( 1905) L. R. 33 I. A. 53.) ; Sajjad Husain v. Ali Khan (( 1912) L. R. 39 I. A. 156.) ; Mali Lal Das v. Eastern Mortgage Co. (( 1920) L. R. 47 I. A. 265, 274.)] Dunne K.C, Wallach and Dube for the respondents were called on only to point to any evidence on the record that Babu Lal had authority, which they did. July 23. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by VISCOUNT DUNEDIN. These three cases all turn on the same point of fact. The appellant, Thakur Bhagwan Singh, had a place of business in Agra, and he occasionally resided there. When he was not there one Babu Lal carried on business for him. In all these suits he is sued on bills which are either drawn or accepted by Babu Lal, and the whole point turns on Babu Lals authority so to do. It was agreed that the evidence in each of the three cases should be available in the others. The appellant denied all knowledge of the bills and of the authority. Both Courts found that he was absolutely untrustworthy, and that his statements were worth nothing. Now in the appeals Nos. 34 and 36, there are concurrent findings of the learned Subordinate Judge and the High Court that Babu Lal had authority to sign the bills, and they, therefore, come under the general rule observed by this Board as to concurrent findings, which is that they will not interfere unless very definite and explicit grounds for that interference are assigned see per Lord Hobhouse in Moung Tha Hnyeen v. Mating Pan Nyo. (L. R. 27 I. A. 166.) But the only definite ground alleged here is that the Subordinate Judge went principally on oral evidence, while the High Court went on the effect of certain letters ; that is no ground. In Ram Anugra Narain Singh v. Chowdhry Hanuman Sahai (L. R. 30 I. A. 41, 43.) this Board said " The appellants counsel, however, contended that this finding was not within the rule, because the Courts were not quite agreed on the grounds of their decision—the Subordinate Judge relying on the oral testimony, whilst the High Court based its finding on the documentary evidence. But the rule is none the less applicable because the Courts may not have taken precisely; the same view of the weight to be attached to each particular item of evidence. But the rule is none the less applicable because the Courts may not have taken precisely; the same view of the weight to be attached to each particular item of evidence. In appeal No. 35 there were concurrent findings as to five bills which the appellant alleged to be forgeries, but as regards four bills the learned Subordinate Judge held that there was a special agreement which entitled Babu Lal to sign only when the appellant was absent. The learned judges of the Appellate Court, founding on the letters and the circumstances proved in all the cases, came to the conclusion that Babu Lal had full authority to sign. Their Lordships see no reason for differing from that opinion. They will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty to dismiss all three appeals with costs.