Jaganath Padhi vs B. Madha Patra

P.K. Mohanti, J.—This revisional application has been preferred against a reversing judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Ganjam, Boudh dismissing the Plaintiff''s suit for recovery of money on the basis of the handnote.

Plaintiff Petitioner filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 680/ - on the allegation that the loan was advanced by him on the execution of a handnote by the Defendant on the 20th day of May, 1969 and that no payment has been made in spite of demands.

The Defendant denied the execution of the handnote and passing of consideration thereunder. His contention was that he is bhag tenant under the Plaintiff and that on some occasions his signatures had been taken by the Plaintiff on blank papers for preparation of Muchlikas. As the Plaintiff wanted to evict him from the lands, he filed Title Suit No. 171 of 1969 for declaration of his tenancy right. Out of grudge, the Plaintiff commenced the present action on false allegations. It was alleged that a piece of blank paper containing his signature had been utilised by the Plaintiff for the purpose of fabricating the suit handnote. In his evidence, the Defendant disowned the signature the executant appearing on the suit handnote.

At the trial, the Parties did not adduce any other oral evidence except examining themselves. The learned Munsif discarded the blank paper theory advanced by the Defendant and further held that the signature of the executant appearing on the suit handnote is that of the Defendant. Relying on the solitary testimony of the Plaintiff, he came to the finding that execution of the handnote Ext. 1 by the Defendant was proved and applying the provisions of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act he put the onus on the Defendant and finding that the onus was not discharged he granted a decree in favour of the Plaintiff. On appeal, the learned Addl. Dist. Judge noticed some suspicious features surrounding the suit handnote and came to hold that the Plaintiff had failed to discharge the onus of proving due execution of the handnote. Accordingly he dismissed the Plaintiff''s suit.

Mrs. A.K. Padhi, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner argued, with some amount of vehemence that in the absence of a specific denial in the written statement, the Defendant should be taken to: have admitted his signature on the suit handnote and hence the burden was on him to prove that he had given the signature on a piece of blank, paper. She also contended that in view of the defence taken it should, be held that the execution of the hand note has been admitted by the Defendant.

The legal position is well settled that mere admission of the signature on a blank paper does not amount to an admission of execution. A blank paper containing the signature cannot be taken to create any liability on the part of the person singing it. The execution of a document implies intelligent and conscious appreciation of the contents and the facts connected with the document and where a blank paper with a signature- does not contain the necessary contents of the transaction, there is, properly speaking, no execution of a document. In Chulhai Lal Dass Vs. Kuldip Singh and Others, , a Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that when the Defendant admitted only that he had, put thumb mark and signature on a document which was not the handnote sued upon, he did not admit the executing of the handnote in suit and, therefore, the onus of proving that the particular handnote was duly executed by the Defendant was upon the shoulders of the Plaintiff. This decision was followed in. Ramadhin Singh Vs. Siaram Singh and Another, , and Ram Pragas Singh Vs. Gajendra Prasad Singh and Another, . An earlier single Judge decision reported in Sahdeo Mauar Vs. Pulesar Nonia, , in which contrary view, had been taken stood overruled by the subsequent Bench decisions reported in Ramlakhan Singh Vs. Gog Singh, . These two Division Bench decisions of the Patna High Court have been followed by a Division Bench of this Court Radhanath Swain Vs. Madhusudan Senapaty and Another, . In the case of Agasti Mahananda v. Ramaprasad Padhi 35 (1969) C.L.T. 794, G.K. Misra, J. (as he then was) held as follows:

Law on the point is well settled. Where the Defendant advances a story that a blank paper signed by him was handed over the Plaintiff, he does not admit the execution of the document. In such a case the onus is still on the Plaintiff to prove execution and payment of consideration...

I am in respectful agreement with this view. On the basis of the authorities cited above, the onus was clearly on the Petitioner to prove due execution of the handnote and passing of consideration thereunder.

Mrs. Padhi relied on the decision of a single Judge of this Court in the case of Harekrushna Swain v. Bijaya Kumar Mall 1971 (1) C.W.R. 949, in support of her contention that in a case of this nature, presumption u/s 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is available to the Plaintiff. In that case no doubt, blank paper theory was advanced by the Defendant, but it was found that the evidence of the Plaintiff and his agent about the execution of the document and the admissions by the Defendant of the encasements on the back of the suit document and of the signatures and thumb impressions appearing on the handnote were sufficient to prove the execution of the handnote. Having arrived at the conclusion that execution of the suit document had been duly proved, his Lordship applied the provisions of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In the present case, the Plaintiff did not examine the scribe and the three witnesses who have signed on the suit hand note as attesting witnesses. The handnote, on a mere look, appears to be suspicious. The manner in which the contents of the document have been written above the signature of the Defendant without leaving any margin on either side and the difference in ink used in the signature of the executant and in the writing of the contents of the documents create a reasonable doubt about the genuineness of the handnote. The Plaintiff did not offer any explanation as to the difference in ink and being confronted with it in cross-examination he evaded a straight answer. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge rightly placed the onus upon the Plaintiff to prove both the execution of the handnote and the payment of the consideration and was justified in dismissing the suit for the Plaintiff''s failure to discharge the onus.

There is no merit in this Civil Revision and it is accordingly dismissed. As there is no appearance for the opp. party, I make no order as to costs.