JUDGMENT : 1. The plaintiff/appellant herein instituted a Civil Suit No. RBT 91/04 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div) Court No. III, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. 2. In the suit (supra) the plaintiff claimed for recovery of Rs.1,24,000/- against the defendant/respondent herein. 3. The learned trial Court upon the afore suit made a decree in affirmation, vis-à-vis, the plaintiff, and, against the defendant. 4. The aggrieved defendant constituted there-against Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2006, before the learned Additional District Judge, Una, H.P. The learned first Appellate Court through its verdict made on 27.5.2009, upon, the afore Civil Appeal partly allowed the defendant’s appeal. The operative part of the verdict, as made, by the learned first Appellate Court, is, extracted hereinafter:- “In view of my findings the appeal is partly allowed. The findings of the learned trial Court are set aside and quashed. However, the plaintiff is held entitled for an amount of Rs. 2100/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of filing the suit till realization being arrears of rent for six months. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The trial Court record alongwith an attested copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith to the ld. trial Court whereas the record of this Court after its due completion be consigned to the record room.” 5. The aggrieved plaintiff has there-against constituted the instant RSA before this Court. When the instant RSA came up for admission before this Court, this Court admitted it, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the findings of the court below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence including the pleadings of the parties as also in-admissible evidence and documents Mark-X, Y and Z and D3 which were neither proved nor otherwise admissible. 2. That on the admission of the defendant and the findings recorded by the Court below that the premises were let out at a rental of rupees 3500/- per month on 1.5.2000 and the only payments which were made were Rs.43000/- at the time when the premises were vacated in October 2003. The suit amount of rupees 1,24,000 ought to have been decreed and the assumption that the rent was not paid from April 2003 and from June to October 2003 are not sustainable. 3. The suit amount of rupees 1,24,000 ought to have been decreed and the assumption that the rent was not paid from April 2003 and from June to October 2003 are not sustainable. 3. Whether in view of the findings of the court below that Rs.21000/- was payable by the defendants to the plaintiff, grant of relief by reversing the judgment of the trial Court to the extent of Rs.2100/- only, the concluding portion of the judgment and decree is contradictory and sustainable in law?” 6. The defendant had been vehemently asserting, that he had liquidated the pleaded sums of money to the plaintiff, and, in respect whereof, he had adduced into evidence, the draft(s) respectively marked as X,Y and Z. Through the afore drafts a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- became liquidated to the plaintiff. The dispute appertains to non-liquidation, by the defendant, to the plaintiff of sums of rent hence appertaining to the suit premises, and, commencing from 1.5.2000, and, ending up to 31.7.2003. Though the afore sums of money, borne in drafts (supra), whereons respective X,Y and Z marks are made, do cover sum(s) of all claimed liquidations towards rent. However, the plaintiff had contended that rent for the months of January, February, March and April, 2003, remained un-liquidated to him. 7. Though the learned counsel for the defendant, has contended, that through the afore mark(s), the entire liability of rent towards the suit premises by the defendant, to him, becoming liquidated, however, the afore made submission is incorrect. The reason being, that none of the afore respective marks’ rather contain any detailings with respect to the amount(s) qua wherewith all the afore became issued. Consequently, if the afore detailings are not made thereons, the afore cannot constitute any tangible evidence with respect, to the suit claim, nor, also when other than the afore marks, as, became relied upon by the defendant, there is no suggestion meted to the plaintiff, that in the presence of any credible witness any signatured, receipts, for the rent supra, became tendered by the defendant to the plaintiff, and, reiteratedly with a disclosure therein, that the afore marks covered also rent for January, February, March and April, 2003. However, the afore evidence is amiss. However, the afore evidence is amiss. Therefore there was no imperative necessity for the plaintiff to adduce cogent evidence qua therewith, as no discharging evidence become encumbered upon him, rather the discharging onus shifted on to the defendant. Obviously, the defendant was enjoined to place on record, the signatured records, as maintained by him, and, also theirs becoming signatured by the plaintiff, and, with visible disclosures therein, that through the afore respectively made marks, the entire suit claim became discharged. 8. Be that as it may, the complainant had asserted, that through the afore marks, he discharged his entire liability, and, had further espoused that the afore discharge occurring in the presence of one Naveen. However he failed to ensure the stepping into the witness box of one Mr. Naveen. The consequence thereof, is that for want of discharging onus (supra) as became encumbered, upon the defendant in respect of his liquidating the suit claim, on anvil of marks (supra), and, whereon no apposite detailings are carried, rather suit claim was to be allowed. Thereupon, the learned first Appellate Court committed an error in partly allowing the defendants’ appeal in terms (supra). 9. Moreover though the defendant had asserted, that he vacated the premises in the month of July, 2003. However, the afore plea remains unsubstantiated, through his placing on record provenly served upon the plaintiff, any notice, and its displaying his vacating the suit premises in the month and year supra. Therefore the defendant was enjoined, to, uptill his provenly vacating, the suit premises liquidate rent qua therewith hence to the plaintiff. 10. There is merit in the appeal, and, the same is allowed. The verdict of the learned first Appellate Court is quashed and set aside, whereas the verdict as made by the learned trial Court is maintained and affirmed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.