V. K. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30. 7. 1996 in Civil Suit No. 44-B/1992 by Ilnd additional District Judge, Sidhi, dismissing the suit of plaintiff/appellant for recovery of loan amount. ( 2 ) UNDISPUTABLY the plaintiff No. 1 is the father of plaintiff No. 2. The suit for recovery of loan amount advanced to him was brought against Gulab Singh, who died during the pendency of the suit. The respondents herein were substituted as legal representatives of gulab Singh, after his death. ( 3 ) THE case of plaintiff/appellant was that the defendant Gulab Singh was his intimate friend. On the request of defendant Gulab singh, the plaintiff on 26. 10. 1983 advansed him loan of Rs. 15,0007- as also 35 khandis' of paddy. It was agreed that the defendant gulab Singh would pay interest @ Rs. 2/- per month on the cash amount of Rs. 15,000/-, and @ 20% per annum on the loan of paddy. Two promissory notes were executed by the defendant Gulab Singh in favour of plaintiffs. The defendant Gulab Singh executed one of the promissory notes for Rs. 10,000/- in favour of plaintiff No. 1, while the other promissory note was executed by him for Rs. 5,000/- and 35 khandis' of paddy in favour of plaintiff no. 2. The defendant Gulab Singh did not repay the loan despite the request of plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs served him with a notice dated 9. 4. 1985. Since the defendant Gulab singh failed to repay loan as above, the suit was filed for recovery thereof with interest. ( 4 ) THE defendant Gulab Singh filed his written statement denying the allegations as above. It was denied by him that loan as alleged by the plaintiff was taken by him. He therefore, averred that there was no question of repayment thereof. It was also pleaded by the defendant that there was dispute of land between him and the plaintiff No. 1, as the latter had got the defendant's land mutated in favour of his son the plaintiff No. 2, on the basis of a forged gift deed. The defendant Gulab singh raised objection regarding the said mutation. Tahsildar on the admission made by the plaintiff No. 2 rejected the application for mutation on the said land in favour of defendant gulab Singh. The defendant Gulab singh raised objection regarding the said mutation. Tahsildar on the admission made by the plaintiff No. 2 rejected the application for mutation on the said land in favour of defendant gulab Singh. Appellant bore grudge with the defendant on account of above dispute and had forged the documents alleged to be the promissory notes. He had denied that the said documents of alleged loan bear his signature. ( 5 ) THE learned trial Court framed issues as to whether the plaintiff had advanced loan of Rs. 15,000/- and 35 khandis' paddy to the defendant, and as to whether the defendant had agreed to pay interest @ Rs. 2/- per month on cash amount of loan; while @ 20% per annum on the loan of paddy. Both the above issues were decided against the plaintiff/appellant and it was held that the loan was not advanced and the Documents Ex. P-1 and ex. P-2 alleged to be the promissory notes were not executed by the defendant. Accordingly, the suit of plaintiff was dismissed. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for appellant submitted that the document Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 evidence that the loan was advanced by the plaintiffs to the defendant. The said documents have been duly proved by the plaintiffs by oral evidence by examining himself as also Shiv prasad (P. W. 2), the attesting witness of the said documents. Therefore, there was no reason as to why the evidence documentary as well as oral, should not have been believed. It has further been submitted that as there was no evidence in rebuttal against the said evidence, the plaintiffs/appellants were entitled to get a decree for recovery of loan advanced by them to the defendant Gulab Singh. ( 7 ) AS against this, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has submitted that the defendant Gulab Singh while he was alive, had in his written statement denied the averments of the plaintiff regarding the advancement of loan and also his signature on the documents Ex. P-l and Ex. P-2. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of plaintiff/appellant to have proved by expert evidence that the document bore his signature. However, no hand writing expert has been examined by the appellant. Moreover, it has been submitted that though the loan was admitted to be advanced only once; two different documents have been allegedly got executed. P-l and Ex. P-2. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of plaintiff/appellant to have proved by expert evidence that the document bore his signature. However, no hand writing expert has been examined by the appellant. Moreover, it has been submitted that though the loan was admitted to be advanced only once; two different documents have been allegedly got executed. As no reasonable explanation has been offered by the plaintiff/ appellant for doing so; the alleged transaction of loan is rendered suspicious. It was also submitted that since the defendant Gulab Singh died during the pendency of the suit, he could not examine himself. However, the plaintiff can only succeed on the strength of his own evidence. It was submitted that the evidence led by plaintiffs is not reliable. The learned counsel for the respondents therefore contended that the suit was rightly dismissed. ( 8 ) AS noted earlier the case of the plaintiff was that he advanced loan to Gulab Singh, who in connection with the said loan executed promissory notes Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. However, Gulab Singh in his written statement denied having taken the loan and having executed documents Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. ( 9 ) IN view of rival stands and contentions as above it has to be considered as to whether it has been duly established that loan was advanced by the plaintiff to Gulab Singh and whether he executed promissory notes Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2? ( 10 ) SECTION 67 of the Evidence Act lays down that if a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person's handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting. Thus, the section requires that the signature of the person who is alleged to have signed it must be proved. The person who makes such allegation must prove it. However, section 67 of Evidence Act does not lay down any particular mode of proof for proving that a particular writing or signature is in the hand of a particular person. ( 11 ) SECTION 73 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for the manner in which a signature or handwriting can be proved. It reads as:"73. However, section 67 of Evidence Act does not lay down any particular mode of proof for proving that a particular writing or signature is in the hand of a particular person. ( 11 ) SECTION 73 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for the manner in which a signature or handwriting can be proved. It reads as:"73. Comparison of signature, writing of seal with others admitted or proved.-In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or, proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. "dwelling upon the scope and ambit of section 73 of the indian Evidence Act, the Supreme Court in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali ram, observed:"the Indian Evidence Act recognises two direct methods of proving the handwriting of a person: (1) By an admission of the person who wrote it. (2) By the evidence of some witness who saw it written. These are the best methods of proof. These apart, there are three other modes of proof by opinion. They are: (i) By the evidence of a handwriting expert. (ii) By the evidence of a witness acquainted with the handwriting of the person who is said to have written the writing in question. (iii) Opinion formed by the Court on comparison made by itself. All these three cognate modes of proof involve a process of comparison. In mode (i), the comparison is made by the expert of the disputed writing with the admitted or proved writing of the person who is said to have written the questioned document. In (ii), the comparison takes the form of a belief which the witness entertains upon comparing the writing in question, with an exemplar formed in his mind from some previous knowledge OR repetitive observance of the handwriting of the person concerned. In (ii), the comparison takes the form of a belief which the witness entertains upon comparing the writing in question, with an exemplar formed in his mind from some previous knowledge OR repetitive observance of the handwriting of the person concerned. In the case of (iii), the comparison is made by the Court with the sample writing or exemplar obtained by it from the person concerned. "it was further observed in the said case that the comparison of the handwriting maybe made by the handwriting expert, or by one familiar with the handwriting of the person concerned, or by the Court itself. ( 12 ) IN Rami Bai v. Life Insurance Corporation of India the Division Bench of this court while considering the question of various modes of proof of signature or writing, has observed :"section 67 does not lay down any particular mode of proof for proving that a particular writing or signature is in the hand of a particular person. Thus, the signatures may be proved in any one or more of following modes:- (i) By calling the person who signed or wrote a document; (ii) By calling a person in whose presence the documents are signed or written; (iii) By calling handwriting expert; (iv) By calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document is supposed to be signed or written; (v) By comparing in Court, the disputed signature or handwriting with some admitted signature or writing; (iv) By proof of an admission by the person who is alleged to have signed or written the document that he signed or wrote it; (vii) By the statement of a deceased professional scribe, made in the ordinary course of business, that the signature on the document is that of a particular person; a signature is also proved to have been made, if it is shown to have been made at the request of a person by some other person, e. g. by the scribe who signed on behalf of the executant; (viii) By other circumstantial evidence. "reference may also be made in the above connection to Kishanprasad v. Madhya pradesh Government through Collector, vidisha. ( 13 ) KEEPING in view the principles of law as above, now it has to be considered and found out whether there is satisfactory evidence that gulab Singh had executed documents Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. "reference may also be made in the above connection to Kishanprasad v. Madhya pradesh Government through Collector, vidisha. ( 13 ) KEEPING in view the principles of law as above, now it has to be considered and found out whether there is satisfactory evidence that gulab Singh had executed documents Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. ( 14 ) IT may be noted in the above connection that the plaintiff No. 1 Kuber Prasad (P. W. 1) states that he had advanced on 26. 10. 1983 a cash amount of Rs. 15,000/-and 35 khandis' of paddy as loan to Gulab singh. He states that two separate documents ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 were executed by the defendant Gulab Singh in connection with the above loan. He has also stated that Shivprasad pandey and Shivprasad Upadhyay (P. W. 2) were present at the time of execution of the said documents. Shivprasad Upadhyay (P. W. 2) also stated that the documents Ex. P-l and Ex. P-2 were executed by Gulab Singh in his presence and he has appended his signature thereon, as attesting witness. ( 15 ) IN the above context the plaintiff No. 1 Kuber Prasad (P. W. 1), in examination-in-chief in para 1 has categorically stated that when the loan as above was advanced shivprasad Pandey and Shivprasad Upadhyay were present. But his statement as above stands contradicted by Shivprasad Upadhyay (P. W. 2), who admitted during cross examination in para 4 of his statement, that loan by way of cash and grain was not advanced in his presence. He states that he was present only when documents ex. P-1 and Ex-P. 2 were being executed by Gulab Singh in the Factory later in the day. ( 16 ) IT may be noticed that contrary to the above statement of Shivprasad Upadhyay (P. W. 2), the plaintiff Kuber Prasad (P. W. 1) in his cross-examination in para -5 stated that during the whole day the grain advanced as loan to the defendant Gulab Singh was being transported by the labourers in the presence of shivprasad Upadhyaya (P. W. 2) and Shivprasad pandey. He has further elaborated that after the grain was so transported Shivprasad upadhyaya (P. W. 2) and Shivprasad Pandey had gone to take their lunch in the midnoon; and thereafter in the evening at 4. He has further elaborated that after the grain was so transported Shivprasad upadhyaya (P. W. 2) and Shivprasad Pandey had gone to take their lunch in the midnoon; and thereafter in the evening at 4. 00 p. m. they went to the factory of Hinchraj Singh, whereafter the paper for executing documents for evidencing loan (Presumably documents Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2)was brought; and the said documents were written and executed in the presence of Hinchraj Singh, Fozdar Singh, shivprasad Upadhyaya, Shivprasad Pandey anal others. ( 17 ) AS noticed earlier, Shivprasad upadhyaya (P. W. 2) has not stated that the cash amount or the grains were given in his presence, as is the above referred statement of plaintiff Kuber Prasad (P. W. I ). The other witnesses including Hinchraj Singh or Shivprasad pandey in whose presence the loan was allegedly advanced, have not been examined. Clearly, therefore, the oral evidence as above adduced by the plaintiff/appellant regarding the loan having been advanced in the presence of witnesses is inconsistent and mutually contradictory, inasmuch as, the statement of plaintiff No. 1 Kuber Prasad (P. W. 1) is contradicted by the statement of Shivprasad Upadhyaya (P. W. 2. ). Thus, the truthfulness of plaintiff's case becomes doubtful: ( 18 ) IT may further be noted that according to the plaintiff's case, the loan as above was given in a single transaction. The loan consisted of Rs. 15,000/- and 35 khandis' of paddy, which were given to Gulab Singh. If that be so, there was no reason as to why two separate documents Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 would have been got executed by the defendant Gulab singh. It may be noticed that Ex. P-l is the document in favour of plaintiff No'. 1 by which loan of Rs. 10,000/- was allegedly advanced, while Ex. P-2 is allegedly executed in favour of plaintiff No. 2, for the alleged loan of Rs. 5,000/- and 35 khandis' of paddy. No reasonable explanation, as to why two separate documents as above were got executed, has been offered by the plaintiff/appellant. This again is a further circumstance, rendering the plaintiff's case doubtful. 10,000/- was allegedly advanced, while Ex. P-2 is allegedly executed in favour of plaintiff No. 2, for the alleged loan of Rs. 5,000/- and 35 khandis' of paddy. No reasonable explanation, as to why two separate documents as above were got executed, has been offered by the plaintiff/appellant. This again is a further circumstance, rendering the plaintiff's case doubtful. ( 19 ) BESIDES, it is important to note that there was already a litigation and dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant Gulab Singh about the mutation of defendant's land in the name of plaintiff No. 2 on the basis of a forged gift deed. The plaintiff No. 1 is a Patwari and according to the case of the defendant, the plaintiff No. 1 had allegedly forged a gift-deed. on the basis of which he got the defendant's land mutated in favour of plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiff No. 1 Kuber Prasad (P. W. 1) has admitted that the said mutation in favour of plaintiff No. 2 was set-aside on account of objection raised by defendant Gulab Singh. The above dispute was prior in time to the alleged advancement of loan in the year 1983. ( 20 ) IN the foregoing circumstances, it is highly improbable, that despite such serious dispute between them, the defendant would have asked for a loan from the plaintiffs. Moreover, it is-also unnatural that the plaintiffs would have readily advanced such a huge amount and large quantity of paddy to the defendant, in the above background. It may also be noted in the above context, that the plaint averments in the above regard are that the defendant Gulab Singh being a close friend of the plaintiffs had asked the latter to advance him the loan. The circumstances as above clearly indicate the falsity of the above averments. ( 21 ) THEREFORE, not only the evidence regarding the advancement of loan as led by the plaintiff/appellant is discrepant but the circumstances of the case also do not lend assurance to the truthfulness of the case set up by the plaintiffs. It may further be pointed out that mere look at the alleged signature of defendant Gulab Singh in ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 would show that they do not tally with his signature "on the written statement and the power filed by him. It may further be pointed out that mere look at the alleged signature of defendant Gulab Singh in ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 would show that they do not tally with his signature "on the written statement and the power filed by him. ( 22 ) IN the above context it may be mentioned that normally the Court should not itself compare the handwriting or signature. As observed by the Apex Court in State (Delhi admn.) vs. Pali Ram (Supra) Section 73 of the indian Evidence Act provides for comparison of signature, handwriting, etc. , purported to have been written by a person with an admit-ted writing of the said person. However, it has not been specifically stated in the said section as to by whom such comparison may be made. It has been further observed therein that comparison as above may be made by a handwriting expert or a person familiar with the handwriting of the person or by the court. However, as a note of caution it was observed in the aforesaid case:"although there is no legal bar to the judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of the evidence of any handwriting expert, the judge should as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting which form the sheet anchor of the prosecution against a person accused of an offence, solely on comparison made by himself. " ( 23 ) 'in State of Gujarat v. Vinay chandra, the Supreme Court has held that it is not essential that a handwriting expert must be examined to prove or disprove a writing. The Court is competent to compare the disputed writing with writing admitted or proved to be that of the person concerned. Of course, the Court may get the writing compared by the expert and examine him if it thinks fit to do so, but is not bound to do so. Similarly in sukhvinder Singh and others v. State of punjab, the Supreme Court has observed that reading section 73 of the Evidence Act as a whole, it is obvious that it is the Court which has to make the comparison and it may form the opinion itself by comparing the disputed and the admitted writing or seek the assistance of an expert. ( 24 ) THEREFORE, though the burden lies on party seeking to establish the execution of a document or t^he handwriting or signature thereon, and normally the Court should not embark on the exercise of comparison of hand writing or signatyre but the Court is not precluded from doing so. ( 25 ) IN the instant case the executant of the document Gulab Singh is dead. The suit was filed during his life time and he has also filed written statement denying his signature on documents Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. The evidence has been led regarding the circumstances in which the said documents Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 were executed. The circumstances as disclosed from the said evidence render it highly doubtful that Gulab Singh had executed the above documents Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. The circumstances of the case, as noted above, clearly belie the oral evidence led by the plaintiffs that gulab Singh had obtained loan from the plaintiffs and had executed documents Ex. P-1 and ex. P-2. Further on comparison of his admitted signature on the written statement and power, the contention of respondents is fortified that the said documents Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 were not signed by Gulab Singh. ( 26 ) THEREFORE, the trial Court was justified in holding that defendant Gulab Singh did not execute the documents and did not put his signatures on the said documents Ex. P-1 and ex. P-2. Therefore, the case of plaintiff that he advanced loan of Rs. 15,000/- as well as 35 khandis' of paddy to the defendant is not worthy of acceptance. The finding in that regard of the learned trial Court are wholly justified and do not call for any interference. The appeal therefore has no substance and is accordingly dismissed. The appellant shall bear his own costs of this appeal and shall pay that of the defendants. Counsel's fee rs. 1,000/- (One thousand), if certified. Appeal dismissed. .