Avtar Singh vs Dalip Singh

G.R. Majithia, J.—This first appeal is directed against the judgement and decree of the trial Judge decreeing the suit of the Plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs. 57,120/-with costs.

Fact first:

The Plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter the Plaintiff) advanced a loan of Rs. 42000/- to the Defendant-appellant (hereinafter the Defendant) against pronote and receipt dated October 11,1974, Exhibits P.1 and P.2 respectively. The loan was to carry interest at the rate of 1 percent per mensem. The Defendant did not tender the amount when demanded necessitating the filling of the suit. The Defendant denied having executed the pronote and the receipt in favour of the Plaintiff.

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

Whether the Defendant executed pronote and receipt in dispute in favour of the Plaintiff?. OPP.

If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the pronote and receipt are without any consideration?. OPD.

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest?. If so, how much?. OPP

Relief.

Under issue No. 1, it was held by the trial Judge that the Defendant had executed the pronote and the receipt, Exhibits P.1 and P.2 respectively, in favour of the Plaintiff. This issue was decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant under issue No. 2 it was held that the pronote and the receipt were for consideration and this issue was answered against the Defendant, under issue No. 3 it was held that the Plaintiff was entitled to recover the loan amount with interest at the rate of 1 % per mensem and on ultimate analysis, the suit was decreed. The Defendant has come up in regular first appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Defendant argued that it was for the Plaintiff to prove that consideration under the pronote and the receipt had passed to the Defendant He further submitted that the attesting witnesses to the pronote and the receipt were not examined. The submissions are meritless. The Plaintiff formally established that the Defendant had executed the pronote and the receipt, Exhibits P.1 and P.2, respectively, in his favour. Once the execution of the pronote and the receipt stood established, it was for the Defendant to establish that no consideration passed under the receipt Exhibit P.2. The Defendant at the trial denied having received the consideration passed under the receipt Exhibit P.2. The trial Judge disbelieved his statement and relying upon the statement of the scribe of the pronote and the receipt came to the conclusion that the consideration passed under the receipt, Ex.P.2, to the Defendant.

I have gone through the evidence of the scribe of the pronote and the receipt and find the same to be truthful. Apart from this, after the parties had led the evidence, the question of onus pleas into insignificance on the evidence on record, the trial Judge correctly came to the conclusion that the consideration passed to the Defendant under the receipt, Ex.P.2. 7. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is benefit of any merit and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.