https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220161 Specific denial is required to challenge signatures on account books; a bare or evasive plea of forgery does not shift the evidentiary burden in the defendant's favour. The plaintiffs' witnesses proved the entries and acknowledgements, so a handwriting expert was not necessary and the transaction stood established. Minor variance between the plaint and the evidence did not cause prejudice, and regularly maintained business accounts could not be rejected without strong rebuttal. No substantial question of law arose to justify interference with concurrent findings under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the High Court's interference was unsustainable; the decree of the courts below was restored. en-us Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220161 Specific denial is required to challenge signatures on account books; a bare or evasive plea of forgery does not shift the evidentiary burden in the defendant's favour. The plaintiffs' witnesses proved the entries and acknowledgements, so a handwriting expert was not necessary and the transaction stood established. Minor variance between the plaint and the evidence did not cause prejudice, and regularly maintained business accounts could not be rejected without strong rebuttal. No substantial question of law arose to justify interference with concurrent findings under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the High Court's interference was unsustainable; the decree of the courts below was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220161