Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. By this judgment I will dispose of R.S.A. No. 2037 of 1979 titled Jangir Singh v. Firm Hari Chand Om Parkash and R.S.A. No. 2613 of 1979 titled Firm Hari Chand Om Parkash v. Jangir Singh, as both these appeals have arisen from the judgment and decree dated 1.6.1979 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 12.1.1979 passed by the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Mansa who partly decreed the money suit in favour of M/s Firm Hari Chand Om Parkash and granted a money decree only to the extent of Rs. 7,300/- and the rest of the claim of the concern was dismissed. 2. Shri Hari Chand son of Basanta Mal, was the sole proprietor of the firm M/s Hari Chand Om Parkash. He filed a money suit for the recovery of Rs. 16,000/- against Shri Jangir Singh son of Shri Bura Singh on the allegations that on 3.1.1975 and on 22.4.1975, defendant Shri Jangir Singh obtained a loan of Rs. 5,300/- and Rs. 7,300/- respectively and executed for the first loan of Rs. 5,300/- a Bahi entry and for the second a pronote in favour of the plaintiff promising to return the amount on demand with interest at the rate of Rs. 1.56 paise per cent per month. Both these documents were thumb-marked by the defendants in token of their correctness. The receipt under the pronote was also attested by the witnesses mentioned therein. It was alleged that defendant was called upon several times to make the payment of the loan but to no effect. Hence the suit. 3. The plaintiff has also claimed future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 4. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant who contested the same. In the written statement Shri Jangir Singh showed ignorance if Hari Chand alone was the sole proprietor of the firm but admitted that the plaintiff-firm carried on its business at Budhlada. Regarding the transactions in question, he stated that he never obtained any loan either of Rs. 5,300/- or of Rs. 7,300/- from the plaintiff. He explained that he used to bring his agriculture produce at the shop of the plaintiff for the last 15 years and the plaintiff on sale of the same used to enter the amount in his Bahis. 5,300/- or of Rs. 7,300/- from the plaintiff. He explained that he used to bring his agriculture produce at the shop of the plaintiff for the last 15 years and the plaintiff on sale of the same used to enter the amount in his Bahis. He used to take the amount off and on against the sale of his produce. He stated that he being a simpleton and illiterate, if the plaintiff obtained his thumb-impressions on any paper, he has not bound by the same as he knows nothing about the transaction. It was also pleaded for the defendant that plaintiff was a money lender and the suit is not maintainable for want of money lending licence. 5. The plaintiff filed a re-joinder in which he denied the allegations of the written statement by reiterating of the plaint. He stated that he was the sole owner of the firm. In the alternative he pleaded that the firm was a joint Hindu family firm and it does not require any registration. Regarding money lending plea of the defendants, it was averred by the plaintiff that it was a money lending firm and it had obtained the requisite licence which was in force upto 13.2.1979. 6. From the above pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the defendant executed bahi entry dated 3.1.1975 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether the defendant executed pronote dated 22.4.1975 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether the pronote and the bahi entry were without consideration? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has been sending six monthly statements under the Punjab Regulation of Accounts? OPP If not its effect? OP parties. 5. Whether Hari Chand is the sole owner of the firm Hari Chand Om Parkash if not its effect? OPP 6. Relief. 7. The parties led evidence in support of their case before the trial Court and on the conclusion of the case it was observed by the trial Court that no consideration has passed on the basis of the Bahi entry dated 3.1.75 by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. Resultantly, issues No. 1 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff. With regard to issue No. 2, it was observed that defendant Jangir Singh executed a pronote for consideration on 22.4.1975 and this issue was also decided in favour of the plaintiff against Jangir Singh. Resultantly, issues No. 1 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff. With regard to issue No. 2, it was observed that defendant Jangir Singh executed a pronote for consideration on 22.4.1975 and this issue was also decided in favour of the plaintiff against Jangir Singh. Under issue No. 4 it was observed that plaintiff had not been sending six monthly statements under the Punjab Regulation of Accounts act irrespective of the fact that plaintiff was a money lender. Resultantly, the trial Court did not grant interest to the plaintiff on the advance of Rs. 7,300/-. Also it was observed that Shri Hari Chand was the sole owner of the firm. In this manner, the suit of the firm was partly decreed to the extent of Rs. 7,300/- only vide judgment and decree dated 12.1.1979 passed by the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Mansa and rest of the claim was rejected. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, both the parties filed their appeals and both these appeals were dismissed by the first appellate court by affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decrees of the Courts below, the present set of appeals; one by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant, has been filed. 10. These appeals, I am disposing of with the assistance of Mr. D.S. Brar, the learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. 11. No assistance has been given to me from the side of Shri Jangir Singh defendant. 12. Firstly, I would like to take up the appeal of Shri Jangir Singh defendant. The point for determination in the appeal of Shri Jangir Singh is whether a sum of Rs. 7,300/- was paid to him by the plaintiff on the basis of the pronote Ex.P.2 and receipt P-3. 13. In order to prove the execution and consideration the plaintiff firm has examined himself as his own Witness and also Shri Prem Chand the scribe of the pronote and the attesting witness Shri Onkar Nath PW-4. All these witnesses have deposed with one voice that defendant Shri Jangir Singh executed the pronote and the receipt and received a cash consideration of Rs. 7,300/-. All these witnesses have deposed with one voice that defendant Shri Jangir Singh executed the pronote and the receipt and received a cash consideration of Rs. 7,300/-. The plaintiff also produced Shri K.C. Jaidka Handwriting Expert in order to compare the thumb-impression of Jangir Singh on the pronote and the receipt with the standard thumb impressions and the expert also came to the conclusion that the thumb impressions appearing on the pronote and the receipt tally with the standard thumb-impressions of Shri Jangir Singh. Once the execution is proved, the presumption is that the negotiable instrument has been executed for consideration. 14. The attack which was made by the defendant against the witnesses was that they are interested one. It is true that two of the witnesses are the interested witnesses. They are father and son but so far as the position of Shri Onkar Nath PW-4 is concerned, he is independent witness and there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. The witness (PW-4) is neither a friend of the plaintiff nor is an enemy of the defendant. There is no motive assigned to him. The statement of the witness is further corroborated by the statement of the expert. Though the evidence of the expert is an evidence of opinion but it can be relied upon for the purpose of corroboration. The defendant has not been able to show that he has returned the amount of Rs. 7,300/- and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the defendant did incur a loan of Rs. 7,300/- on the basis of pronote but did not return the same to the plaintiff. Therefore, the appeal of Shri Jangir Singh has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. 15. Reverting to the appeal of the plaintiff, it was submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff that it stands proved on the record that as per Bahi entry P-1, plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs. 5,300/- to the defendant and this entry has been duly proved from the statement of the plaintiff and also from the statement of the scribe Shri Om Parkash. It was also argued by the counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff that the statements of these witnesses are corroborated by the statement of the Handwriting expert Shri J.C. Jaidka. Apart from that the accounts which are regularly maintained by the plaintiff show that a sum of Rs. It was also argued by the counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff that the statements of these witnesses are corroborated by the statement of the Handwriting expert Shri J.C. Jaidka. Apart from that the accounts which are regularly maintained by the plaintiff show that a sum of Rs. 5,300/- was paid to defendant Jangir Singh. Execution of the bahi entry is proved, therefore, it should be inferred that a sum of Rs. 5,300/- had been paid to the defendant. Since this amount has not been returned to the plaintiff, therefore, the Courts below committed an error in dismissing the suit of Rs. 5,300/-. Also it was submitted by the counsel that both the Courts committed illegality when the interest has not been awarded to the plaintiff. 16. In this regard there are conflicting statements. Much reliance cannot be placed on the statement of Shri Om Parkash PW-2. He is the son of the plaintiff. Moreover, there is inherent contradiction between the statement of Janak Raj, PW-5 who is Munim of the plaintiff and according to this witness he was allegedly present when the amount of Rs. 5,300/- was advanced to the defendant but when PW-2 came in the witness box he stated that PW-5 was not present when the amount was given. In order to prove the due execution of the bahi entry there should be proper meeting of mind and the actions to be taken on the part of an individual. Mere putting of the signature or mere placing of the thumb-impression, is no proof of due execution of a document. Execution is complete when there is a meeting of mind between the act and the mind. If a person does not understand the contents of the document and just places his thumb-impression or signatures, it cannot be said due execution. Until a due execution of a document is established no adverse inference can be drawn against a person who simply puts a signature or thumb-impression on a document. It is the common cases of the parties that in the present case Shri Jangir Singh defendant was a simpleton agriculturist. It was obligatory upon the plaintiff to prove the due execution and payment of consideration. On both these counts, the plaintiff has failed and the payment of Rs. 5,300/- on the basis of bahi entry P.1 is not proved. 17. It was obligatory upon the plaintiff to prove the due execution and payment of consideration. On both these counts, the plaintiff has failed and the payment of Rs. 5,300/- on the basis of bahi entry P.1 is not proved. 17. I do not find any wrong in the judgments of the Courts below with regard to the interest part. There is no evidence to the effect that the plaintiff, who was admittedly a money lender, had been sending the requisite statutory six monthly statements to the defendant for running regular interest on the amount of the pronote and as such, the plaintiff firm was not entitled to the interest. 18. With regard to the future interest, there is a point. Both the Courts below have not granted future interest to the plaintiff from the date of the decree of the suit till payment. In this view of the matter, while dismissing the appeal of Shri Jangir Singh and while partly allowing the appeal of the plaintiff, it is hereby declared that a money decree for Rs. 7,300/- only is granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the passing of the decree by the trial Court dated 12.1.1979 till payment. The decree-sheet be prepared. Both the aforesaid appeals stand disposed of accordingly.