JUDGMENT P.R. Sharma, J. 1. This is a defendant's Second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-10-1958 passed by the District Judge, Gwalior in Civil First Appeal No. 170 of 1954. 2. The respondent Champalal filed a suit against Suganchand and respondent No. 2. Surajraj, as one of the trustees of the property on one Dhanraj for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,000 alleged to have been advanced to Mahabir Gota Factory, Gwalior. The plaintiff based his fight to sue on a will executed in favour of himself, Surajraj and three others. The suit was based on an entry found in the account-books of the deceased Dhanraj. 3. The defendant No. 1, Suganchand in his written statement denied having borrowed the sum of Rs. 1,000 from Dhanraj as alleged by the plaintiff. He pleaded that he had deposited a diamond ring worth about Rs. 1,000 with Dhanraj and that if any amount was found due against him it should be adjusted against the price of the ring. The defendant No. 2, Surajraj denied all knowledge about the transaction on which the suit was based. 4. The plaintiff in his deposition proved that the entry Ex. P/2 in the rokad was in the handwriting of the deceased Dhanraj. The defendant No. 2, Surajraj deposed that he along with Suganchand were the owners of the firm Mahabir Gota Factory. He remembered having seen a credit entry of Rs. 1,000 in favour of Dhanraj in the account-books of the firm Mahabir Gota Factory. 5. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that a sum of Rs. 1,000 was borrowed by the defendant No. 1, and therefore, dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge reversed the decree passed by the Court of first instance. The grounds upon which his judgment is based may briefly be stated as follows: (1) Ex. P/2 was relevant u/s 32 (2) of the Evidence Act and the statement of Champalal lends support to it; (2) the defendant No. 1 did not produce the account-books of the Mahabir Gota Factory in Court in order to rebut the evidence of Surajraj; (3) the defendant No. 1 did not reply to the notice of demand given by the plaintiff. 6. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides I am of the opinion that none of the aforesaid grounds could legally support the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge. In the first place though the entry Ex. P/2 in the rokad might be admissible u/s 32 (2) read with S. 35 of the Evidence Act, but such an entry cannot by itself be sufficient for fastening liability on any person. In the first place Champalal did not claim to have any personal knowledge about the transaction embodied in the entry Ex. P/2. Secondly he did not state the grounds upon which he claimed to be acquainted with the handwriting of Dhanraj. Thirdly the lower appellate Court has made no reference to the evidence of Hanumandas who examined the plaintiff's account-books and found that they were not regularly kept. 7. In these circumstances the evidence furnished by the entry in the account-book could not be said to derive any support from the evidence of Champalal. The postal acknowledgment Ex. P/5 is not signed by the defendant No. 1. No evidence was produced by the plaintiff in order to show that the registered notice sent by him was duly tendered to Suganchand and was refused by him. The defendant No. 1, it may be noted, denied his having received any such notice. Suganchand having separated himself from the firm Mahabir Gota Factory and having denied the plaintiff's claim in his written-statement cannot be said to be jointly interested in the result of the suit, with the defendant No.1. An admission made by him about the existence of an entry of Rs. 1,000 in favour of Dhanraj in the account-books of the Mahabir Gota Factory cannot in the circumstances be held to be admissible in evidence. No question, therefore, arose of the defendant being under any necessity of rebutting his evidence. No presumption can be drawn against the defendant for non-production of his own account-books. The plaintiff can succeed only on the strength of his own case and he having failed to make out his case cannot be heard to say that if the defendant had produced his accounts, a case which was otherwise not proved could have been established. 8. In this view of the matter this appeal must be allowed. The plaintiff can succeed only on the strength of his own case and he having failed to make out his case cannot be heard to say that if the defendant had produced his accounts, a case which was otherwise not proved could have been established. 8. In this view of the matter this appeal must be allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court are hereby set aside and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed. But in the circumstances I shall make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed