Gurcharan Singh vs S.Moti Ram

N.C. Jain, J. (Oral)

This appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the appellate Court by which the plaintiff''s suit of Rs. 4760/ has been decreed with costs of both the Courts.

Moti Ram, plaintiff, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 4760/ on the basis of pronote Exhibit P1 dated 7.7.1973. It was averred in the plaint that on 7.7.1973 the appellant took a loan of Rs. 3500/ from him and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1% per mensem. In token of acceptance of loan amount, receipt Exhibit P2 was also executed by the appellant. The suit was contested by the appellant denying the execution of the pronote. It was also averred in the written statement that no consideration in lieu of pronote had passed. On the basis of rival contentions of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(1) Whether the defendant executed the pronote in favour of the plaintiff ? OPP

(2) If issue No. 1 is proved whether the pronote is without consideration ? OPD

(3) Whether the pronote was got executed by fraud and misrepresentation as alleged in the written statement ? OPD

(4) Whether the plaintiff is moneylender ? If so, to what effect ?

(5) Whether the defendant is a landless debtor and the amount in question stands discharged ? OPD

(6) Whether the suit is not within time ? OPD

(7) Relief.

The trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffrespondent and against the defendantappellant barring issue No. 5 under which it was held that the defendant was a landless debtor, and, therefore, the amount in question stood discharged. On the other issues, it was found by the trial Court that the defendantappellant did execute pronote in favour of the plaintiffrespondent. It was found under issue No. 2 that the pronote was for consideration. Under issue No. 3 the trial Court found that the pronote was not executed by practising any fraud and misrepresentation. Under issue No. 4 the plaintiff was held not to be a moneylender. The suit was found within time under issue No. 6. As has been observed, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffrespondent by recording a finding under issue No. 5. In first appeal instituted at the instance of the plaintiffrespondent, the finding under issue No. 5 was reversed and the suit of the plaintiffrespondent has been decreed.

In this appeal which has been instituted by the defendant, it has been vehemently argued by Shri Amarjit Markan, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellate Court has committed legal error inasmuch as it has taken into consideration the land which was owned by the father of the appellant.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal. It has highly been found by the appellate Court that no cogent evidence has been produced on the record of the case to prove that the appellant earned his livelihood as agricultural labourer. On the other hand, the persual of the record makes it quite clear that the defendantappellant has himself admitted that his father owned 14 killas of land which does not stand partitioned. The appellate Court has rightly recorded further finding to the effect that it will be presumed that the appellant must be cultivating the land along with his brother. Even otherwise, the appellant who is joint, has got undivided share in the property of his father. It has been held in Pritam Singh v. Asstt. Controller of Estate Duty, Patiala, 1976 PLR 342 that all the agriculturists Sikhs and Jats are Hindus and they are governed by Hindu Law. In view of the dictum of law laid down in Pritam Singh''s case (supra) the appellant has got a share in the undivided property of his father and, therefore, he cannot be held to be an agricultural labourer. This being the position, I am of the firm view the appellant cannot be termed as debtor within the meaning of Section 2(v) of the Punjab Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act No. 24 of 1975.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is consequently ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.