Jaswant Singh vs Dilbagh Singh

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Present regular second appeal has been filed by the Defendant-Appellant. The Plaintiff-Respondent had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,760/-, relying upon a pronote and receipt dated 28th June, 1982. It was pleaded by the Plaintiff-Respondent that the Defendant-Appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,000/-from him on 28th June, 1982 and had executed a pronote and receipt in his favour. The rate of interest was fixed at 2 per cent per month. On appearance, the Defendant-Appellant filed written statement and took a preliminary objection that the pronote was not properly stamped, however, it was denied that Rs. 8,000/-were advanced to him. Execution of the pronote and receipt was also challenged. However, the Defendant-Appellant admitted that the Plaintiff-Respondent had obtained his signatures on various blank pronotes. An allegation was set up that in fact, the Defendant-Appellant had purchased a motorcycle bearing registration No. BHE 1472, make Rajdoot from the Plaintiff-Respondent for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/-and the documents regarding transfer of the motorcycle were not executed in his favour.

After completion of pleadings, the trial Court formulated following issues:

Whether Defendant executed the pronote and receipt dated 28.6.82 in favour of the Plaintiff? OPP

If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the pronote and receipt are without consideration, result of fraud and mis-representation? OPD

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the interest, if so at what rate? OPP

Relief.

The Plaintiff-Respondent appeared as PW-1, examined Kuljit Singh as PW-2, Amar Singh as PW-3 and Faqir Chand as PW-4. The pronote, receipt, postal receipt and the notice were proved as Ex.P1 to P4 respectively.

The Defendant-Appellant himself appeared as DW-1, examined Lal Singh as DW-2 and Parshotam Singh as DW-3.

The trial Court upheld the execution of pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2. The Court further held that the Defendant-Appellant has admitted his signatures on the pronote and the receipt. Thus, the suit was decreed for Rs. 13,760/-. The trial Court further held that the Plaintiff-Respondent was entitled to interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month.

The lower appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court qua execution of the pronote and the receipt, however, the rate of interest was reduced from 2 per cent per month to 1 per cent per month and a future interest was awarded at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.

Since concurrent findings of fact have been returned by both the Courts below, neither any substantial question of law arises nor has been formulated by counsel for the Defendant-Appellant.

Hence, no interference is warranted in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

However, it is directed that the amount of Rs. 3,000/-paid to counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondent at the time of admission of the present appeal, shall be adjusted towards satisfaction of the decree.