JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Appellant-Bank has laid this first appeal to challenge the impugned judgment and decree dated 19th of July, 1991, passed by District Judge, Banswara (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby learned trial Court has dismissed suit of the Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs. 41,668.25. 2. In the plaint, it is, inter alia, averred by the appellant-Bank that father of respondents No.1 to 8, Shri Kalyan Singh, was sanctioned and disbursed a loan worth Rs. 37,100/- for purchasing a tractor and, at the time of disbursement of loan, Kalyan Singh mortgaged agricultural land measuring 181 bighas and 17 biswas situated at village Bhukhiya and a document of simple mortgage was executed by Kalyan Singh on 29th of May, 1972 in favour of Bank. The requisite documentation, as per the appellant-Bank, was also done by Kalyan Singh for hypothecation of agriculture machinery, tractor. A specific case is set out in the plaint that after obtaining loan, Kalyan Singh passed away, and therefore, his legal representatives, i.e., respondents No.1 to 8 have been arrayed as defendants for recovery of loan amount with interest. On 3rd of May, 1983, when the suit was filed, the total outstanding amount was worked out as Rs. 41,668.25. In the plaint, respondent No.9, Moti Singh was also arrayed as defendant being guarantor in this transaction. 3. Respondents No.1 to 8 contested the suit and denied all the averments of the plaint. The factum of obtaining loan by their father and execution of simple mortgage and other documents was disputed by the respondents. A specific plea is raised in the written statement that suit has not been filed in accordance with Section 34 of CPC, and therefore, merits dismissal. Jurisdiction of Civil Court is also questioned by taking shelter of Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operation (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974. As none appeared for ninth respondent-guarantor, therefore, Court proceeded ex-parte against him. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, framed nine issues for determination. Appellant-Bank, in order to prove the averments contained in plaint, examined two witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Madhusudan Bhatt, and P.W.2 Surendra Lal Malot. That apart, in all, fourteen documents were produced, which were exhibited. No evidence is tendered by the respondents. 4. Learned trial Court, thereafter, proceeded to consider Issues No.1 & 2 simultaneously in the light of evidence and other materials available on record. That apart, in all, fourteen documents were produced, which were exhibited. No evidence is tendered by the respondents. 4. Learned trial Court, thereafter, proceeded to consider Issues No.1 & 2 simultaneously in the light of evidence and other materials available on record. As burden of proving both these issues was on the appellant-Bank, the learned trial Court made sincere endeavour to analyse the evidence of the appellant-Bank. On critical examination of evidence tendered by appellant-Bank, learned trial Court noticed that deposition of both the witnesses of Bank is evasive and both of them have failed to prove execution of the loan agreement as well as execution of simple mortgage in favour of Bank. During cross-examination, both the witnesses have specifically denied having personal knowledge about the disbursement of loan and the entire transaction. In this view of the matter, even in absence of evidence of respondent/defendant, the learned trial Court found that the appellant-Bank has failed to discharge its burden to prove both these issues and, consequently, decided both these issues against the Bank. 5. While adverting to Issue No.3, the learned trial Court has observed that appellant-Bank has not whispered anything in its evidence that Kalyan Singh was survived by how many legal heirs and how they are legally obliged to pay the loan, which was disbursed to Late Kalyan Singh. The Court has observed that letter (Ex.10 to 13), as per Bank witness, was delivered to Vijay Singh but Bank witness miserably failed to prove as to how he has identified signatures of Vijay Singh. The Court has also observed that there is no basis for the Bank witness to say that these letters were signed by respondent Vijay Singh. In that background, Issue No.3 is decided against the appellant-Bank. 6. Issues No. 4 & 5 are also threadbare examined by learned trial Court and, taking note of many discrepancies and pitfalls in the evidence of the appellant-Bank, both these issues are also decided against the appellant-Bank. 7. In that background, Issue No.3 is decided against the appellant-Bank. 6. Issues No. 4 & 5 are also threadbare examined by learned trial Court and, taking note of many discrepancies and pitfalls in the evidence of the appellant-Bank, both these issues are also decided against the appellant-Bank. 7. While adverting to Issue No.6, the learned trial Court has found that although suit is projected as a suit for foreclosure of mortgage by issuing preliminary decree but, in fact, it is a simple suit for recovery of money, for which period of limitation is three years, and if the period of limitation is to be recokened from 29th of May, 1972, then, obviously the suit, which is filed in 1983, is barred by limitation. On the strength of this finding, Issue No.6 is decided against the Bank. 8. Issues No.7 to 9 are decided against the respondents as no evidence was tendered by them. 9. However, eventually taking into account adverse findings against appellant-Bank on Issues No.1 to 6, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. 10. I have heard Mr. N.K. Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant and, Mr. Manish Sisodia and Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 8 and also scanned the entire record of the case. 11. Upon perusal of impugned judgment and record of the case, it is crystal clear that the framework of suit was designed by the appellant-Bank for recovery of a sum of 41,668.25. It is not in dispute that the loan, at the threshold, was disbursed by the appellant-Bank to Kalyan Singh and Kalyan Singh executed relevant documents for disbursement of loan including simple mortgage and the hypothecation deed. The suit, as such, was filed by the Bank after death of Kalyan Singh by arraying his alleged legal representatives as defendants, therefore, when the respondents have denied the entire loan transaction, burden was on the appellant-Bank to prove disbursement of loan and execution of the documents by Kalyan singh and furthermore it was obligation of the bank to establish that how and in what manner liability of the loan amount with interest, which was disbursed to Kalyan Singh, can be fastened on the respondents. 12. 12. Well, it is true that respondents have not tendered any evidence but then basic principle of burden of proof is that one who asserts particular fact is required to prove the same and if he has ably discharged his burden, the burden shifts on the opposite party to disprove the same. This is not the situation here and, on the face of it, the evidence tendered by the appellant-Bank is absolutely vague, evasive and hazy on which no prudent man can place reliance, and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly declined to place reliance on the same while deciding crucial issue Nos.1 to 5 against the appellant-Bank and in favour of respondents. The law on the subject is trite. Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is based on the rule, ei incumit probation qui decit, non-quit negat - burden of proving a fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it; for a negative is usually incapable of proof. The doctrine of burden of proof is further elaborated in following maxims:- 7 Affirmatis est probare - He who affirms must prove. 7 Affirmanti, non neganti incumbit probation - The burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon one who denies. 13. The cumulative effect of these two maxims is to the effect that the person who affirms should prove it. 14. There remains no quarrel that period of limitation for recovery amount is three years and the suit filed by the appellant-Bank was after expiry of the period of limitation, inasmuch from the date of accrual of cause of action it was filed almost after delay of one decade and the so-called acknowledgement by Vijay Singh about the death of his father has not been proved by the appellant-Bank. The learned trial Court has rightly brushed aside the testimony of the bank witnesses that notices were served on Vijay Singh inasmuch as the bank witnesses have failed to identify signatures of Vijay Singh on letter Exhibit 10 to 13 respectively. 15. In totality, the finding of fact recorded by the learned Court below, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings of the rival parties and the evidence tendered, cannot be faulted so as to arrive at some different conclusion in the matter. 15. In totality, the finding of fact recorded by the learned Court below, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings of the rival parties and the evidence tendered, cannot be faulted so as to arrive at some different conclusion in the matter. Finding and conclusion by the learned trial Court is fair, reasonable and proper satisfying the requirement of prudency. While assailing the impugned judgment appellant has miserably failed to point out any patent error or legal infirmity in the finding warring interference. 16. Resultantly, I am in total agreement with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, and consequently appeal fails and same is, accordingly, dismissed.