According to the appellant, the defendant4respondents vide Ex.P10 dated 08.09.1978 and Ex.P11 dated 08.09.1978 had admitted their liability to return the amount for the bricks, which they could not supply. Moreover, the suit is within limitation from the date of acknowledgement. However, both the Courts below have found that the aforesaid acknowledgements have not been proved in accordance with law, as the defendants have specifically denied their signatures on the aforesaid acknowledgements and the appellant failed to prove the signatures of the defendant4respondents on the aforesaid receipts by producing an expert or other evidence. Moreover, in the said acknowledgements it is mentioned that the respondents failed to supply 2,07,500 bricks whereas according to their own case, balance bricks which could not be supplied were 2,21,000 and thus, the aforesaid acknowledgements do not relate to the transaction, as alleged by the plaintiff4appellant in the instant case. In any case, both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding on the basis of appreciation of evidence and in view of the discussion made above, it can not be said that the findings so recorded suffer from perversity. Thus, no interference is warranted in the instant appeal as the substantial questions of law, as raised, do not arise at all therein.
