Binder Singh vs Satpal

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is a regular second appeal brought by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 20.7.2012 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge [Senior Division], Mandi Dabwali and judgment and decree dated 24.1.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa. The suit which succeeded with learned trial court has been brought by Satpal for recovery of Rs. 5,44,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt. The case of Satpal is as under:

On 17.05.2006, Binder Singh, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 4.00 lakhs from the plaintiff and executed a pronote and receipt in his favour in the presence of witnesses. He duly thumb-marked the pronote and receipt. He agreed to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. When the plaintiff demanded his money back, the defendant did not pay the amount. Even legal notice went unheeded and, hence, the suit.

The defendant denied having ever borrowed a sum of Rs. 4.00 lakhs from the plaintiff or having executed a pronote and receipt on 17.5.2006 in his favour. He claimed that the pronote and receipt are based on fraud and misrepresentation. According to him, the same have been procured in connivance with the witnesses who are yesmen of the plaintiff. The defendant has set-up a plea that he used to sell his agricultural produce on the shop of the plaintiff for one year and thereafter about 10 or 11 years back he stopped going to his shop. According to him, the plaintiff might have obtained his thumb impression on some papers when he was going to his shop and the defendant being an illiterate person may have affixed his thumb impression on papers in good faith. According to him, as he stopped going to the shop of the plaintiff, he must have been annoyed and has misused his thumb impressions in order to create a pronote and receipt. He also claimed that he belongs to village Biruwala whereas the marginal witnesses belong to village Kalanwali and Jagmalwali who are not known to him and, therefore, the pronote and receipt are clearly shown to have never been executed by him. He has also pleaded that the names of the witnesses have been written later on in different ink which also supports the stand of the defendant that the pronote is forged. It is also averred that pronote has not been scribed by any petition writer. The other averments of the plaint are denied.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned trial court.

Whether the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- on interest by executing a pronote and receipt dated 17.05.2006 in favour of the plaintiff but he did not reply the same? OPP

If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 5,44,000/- along with interest? OPP

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation? OPD

Relief.

Taking evidence of the parties, learned trial court returned findings on issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and on issue No. 4 against the defendant. In the result, the suit succeeded and has been decreed with costs. Decree has been passed for recovery of Rs. 5,44,000/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount.

The defendant filed an appeal which could not succeed before learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 24.1.2013.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that it is a case where the scribe of the pronote and receipt is the son of the plaintiff. According to him, the scribe has not signed the document. He has further submitted that though, the plaintiff has appeared as a witness to support his case, but the marginal witnesses of the pronote and receipt were not examined.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Satpal, the plaintiff had been a commission agent and he might have obtained thumb-impressions of the defendant-appellant on some papers and may have converted those papers into pronote and receipt.

No stigma can be attached to the documents for the reason that the son of the plaintiff has scribed the same and that he has not himself signed the documents. The thumb impressions on the documents are not denied by the defendant to be his thumb impressions. He has claimed that about 10 or 11 years ago, he brought his agricultural produce to the shop of the plaintiff for one year and then he stopped taking his produce to that shop. According to him, during that one year, when he brought his produce at the shop of the plaintiff, he might have obtained his thumb impressions on some papers and as he stopped bringing his produce to the shop of the plaintiff, he might have converted those papers into pronote and receipt.

Statement of the plaintiff and his son are sufficient to prove that the document was executed by the defendant. Now, the plea of the defendant that his thumb impressions might have been obtained by the plaintiff 10 or 11 years back when for one year he had been bringing his produce to his shop appears to be unbelievable. First of all, the defendant has brought nothing on record to prove that he ever brought his produce to the shop of the plaintiff. Even if, it is assumed that he had brought his produce at the shop of the plaintiff for one year, nothing is there to show as to why he stopped bringing his produce there. The most important circumstance which goes against the case of the appellant is that for 10-11 years, the plaintiff remained silent and after that long period, he misused the thumb impression of the defendant by making out a pronote and receipt thereon. If a person would have been annoyed with his customer stopping bringing his produce at his shop, he would misuse the papers with him having thumb impressions of the customer within a year or two. He would not wait for 10-11 years to use that document. In these circumstances, I find no fallacy in the judgments of the courts below. Therefore, no questions of law much less substantial questions of law arise in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed in limine.