JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit filed for recovery of Rs. 20,500/- on the basis of a pronote and receipt executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. 2. For the purposes of deciding the present first appeal the relevant facts are that on 5-8-1971 the defendant took a loan from the plaintiff and executed a pronote and receipt for an amount of Rs. 12,000/- repayable along with interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month. According to the plaintiff despite demand and notice the defendant failed to pay the amount and hence the suit for recovery of Rs. 20,500/- for principal and interest was filed. 3. The aforesaid suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that on 31-7-1972 the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 14,800,00 to the plaintiff in full and final satisfaction of his claim and the plaintiff issued a receipt under his own signatures to the defendant. It was also contended that the defendant being an agriculturist was entitled to take the benefit of U.P. Agriculturists Credit Act. 4. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit in to after recording findings against the defendant on all the questions. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised to questions in this first appeal. It has been firstly urged that the court below has erred in law in not applying the provisions of U.P. Agriculturists Credit Act. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention. From the perusal of the judgment itself it is clear that no such submission in this point was made during the course of arguments from the side of the defendant. It may be mentioned that for the application of the Act certain essential facts had to be proved by the defendant and the burden of proof clearly lay on him., When the defendant did not argue the point before the trial court, the same cannot be allowed to be raised in the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also challenged the finding recorded by the trial court on the question of payment of money as pleaded by the defendant. It has been urged that the receipt filed by the defendant clearly showed that the entire amount had been paid and there was nothing outstanding towards the defendant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also challenged the finding recorded by the trial court on the question of payment of money as pleaded by the defendant. It has been urged that the receipt filed by the defendant clearly showed that the entire amount had been paid and there was nothing outstanding towards the defendant. I have carefully gone through the judgment and the evidence on the record and I am of the opinion that the finding had been recorded on correct appraisal of evidence. The trial court has rightly held that the scribe of the receipt Sri Rajendra Singh (D. W. 2) was in interested witness as he has acting as pairokar of the defendant in another suit No. 112 of 1972. The theory set up by the defendant that he did not know Rajendra Singh and that Rajendra Singh was brought by the plaintiff for scribing the receipt was rightly disbelieved by the trial court, as it appeared improbable that the plaintiff would ask Rajendra Singh to accompany him as the plaintiff was himself a literate person and secondly Rajendra Singh was a person who was the own man of the defendant. There is another very important circumstances in this case which costs doubt on the case set up by the defendant i.e. not asking for the return of the pronote and receipt by the defendant from the plaintiff. In case he had repaid the entire amount advanced to him on the basis of pronote and receipt. Any prudent person in such circumstances after having cleared and paid the amount advanced on the basis of pronote and receipt would have asked for the return of the pronote and receipt. However, we find that no such attempt was made by the defendant and the pronote and receipt were allowed to remain in the custody of the plaintiff. The court below has also rightly held that the signatures of the plaintiff on the receipt were not proved as the report of the handwriting Expert Sri A.S. Kapoor on the reasoning given by him was liable for more weightage. In my opinion the trial court has correctly appraised the evidence and the finding recorded on this question does not require any interference. 6. No other point has been pressed before me. 7. For the reasons stated above the present first appeal is dismissed with costs.