Short Note : By this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure the appellant-plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 22-3-1971 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Civil Appeal No. 51-A of 1967 by which his suit has been dismissed. 2. Facts in brief leading to the present appeal are that when the plaintiff was four years old the suit house was purchased by his father jointly in his and his mother's name, who is defendant No.2-respondent No.2 on 10-4-1950. As regards the consideration, it was not paid by respondent No. 1 (plaintiff's father), but partly by respondent No.2 by disposing of her stridhan and the balance of the consideration was given by his grand-father. Thus, it was tried to be pleaded that respondent No. I had no right to mortgage the suit house with respondent No.3-defendant No.3 on 18-5-1954 and as such the said mortgage was null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that no consideration had passed and the document with reference to the mortgage was fake, bogus and unconscionable. Hence the present suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration that he was not hound by the mortgage deed dated 18-5-1954. 3. Held: Having heard learned counsel of the parties I am of opinion that the appeal is devoid of force and it must be dismissed. The plaintiff's claim for the suit house has been rejected on the ground that he has no right over the same as the transaction with regard to the purchase of the house was made benami by his father (defendant No.1) in the name of plaintiff and defendant No 2. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff rightly contended that if this finding of fact could be assailed, then alone there is merit in this appeal. Therefore, for disputing the finding about benami transaction, the learned counsel contended that document (Ex. D-3) dated 4-5-1950 by which the respondent No. I alleged that the defendant No. I had taken loan of Rs. 4,000 to make up the price of the suit house for the purchase is not proved. It is no doubt true that if this document cannot be accepted in evidence, the plea of the plaintiff that the transaction was not benami will have to be accepted. The document (Ex. D-3) is Indul Talab Rukka exhibiting loan of Rs. 4,000 to make up the price of the suit house for the purchase is not proved. It is no doubt true that if this document cannot be accepted in evidence, the plea of the plaintiff that the transaction was not benami will have to be accepted. The document (Ex. D-3) is Indul Talab Rukka exhibiting loan of Rs. 4,000 towards the payment of the price of the suit house executed by Kalyana. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that this document has not been proved to have been executed by said Kalyana and as such could not be accepted into evidence. The execution of this document by Kalyana has been proved by the defendant No.3 who examined himself as a witness (D. W. I) and proved that the signature on the document was that of Kalyana and no question was put to him to doubt about the credibility of his statement. Even the plaintiff did not enter the witness box to deny that document (Ex. D-3) did not bear the signature of his father Kalyana. That being so, the lower appellate Court rightly held as proved that the document (Ex. D-3) was executed by Kalyana. 4. Then it was also tried to be contended that it was not enough to prove the signature of Kalyana who signed the document as that could not prove the correctness of the contents of the document which could only be done by calling the person who could depose as to the correctness of the said contents on the basis of his personal knowledge. In my opinion even this submission as far the present case is concerned has no merit as there was no challenge to the contents. The lower appellate Court has discussed this aspect of the case in para 8 of its judgment and given reasons for its holding that it was proved that Kalyana had taken loan through document (Ex. D-3) and there was no evidence in rebuttal to the effect that Kalyana had not taken that loan by executing the said document. The executor of the document, namely, Kalyana was also the father of the plaintiff, he did not examine himself in evidence to deny the contents of this document. In these circumstances I am of opinion that no challenge can lie to the finding about the benami transaction on this count. Appeal dismissed.