Kartar Singh vs Puran Singh

Viney Mittal, J.—The defendant is in appeal.

The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,100/- on account of principal and interest payable under the pronote date June 30, 1981.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had executed a pronote and receipt dated June 30, 1981 for a sum of Rs. 2,600/- but had failed to pay anything on that account and, consequently, including the interest an amount of Rs. 3,100/- had become due.

It was averred by the plaintiff that the defendant on behalf of his son Baldev Singh had agreed to purchase the land of plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 92,000/- but the defendant had no money to purchase the entire land as per agreement. He requested the plaintiff to sell his only 10 kanals 8 marlas of land out of 18 kanals 8 marlas for Rs. 52,000/-. The defendant had no money and as such requested to execute the sale deed on payment of Rs. 40,000/-. Out of the remaining amount of Rs. 12,000/-, Rs. 8,000/- were to be adjusted against a pronote dated April 28, 1981, Rs. 1,400/- were to be paid cash and a pronote was executed for Rs. 2,600/-. It was further alleged that defendant neither paid the principal amount nor the interest, therefore, the present suit was filed.

The defendant contested the suit. He denied the execution of any pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. He admitted that there was an agreement to purchase the land of the plaintiff for Rs. 92,000/- and for effecting such sale, the vendor was required to obtain a clearance certificate from the Income Tax Department, which he failed to do so and then the plaintiff requested the defendant that he will sell the land in piecemeal. Sale deed for Rs. 40,000/- was to be executed in favour of Baldev Singh son of the defendant.

The learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence available on record dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Although a finding was recorded that defendant had executed the pronate and receipt in question in favour of the plaintiff, but it was held that there was no evidence with regard to the taking of the consideration amount.

The matter was taken up in appeal. The learned First Appellate Court re-appraised the entire evidence. On the basis of such re-appraisal, the learned First Appellate Court held that once the pronate and receipt Exhibits P-7 and P-8 were found to be duly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, then there was a presumption with regard to passing of the consideration. Nothing has been shown by the defendant that the aforesaid presumption had been rebutted. On that basis, the judgment of the learned Trial Court was reversed and after accepting the appeal of the plaintiff, the suit was decreed.

The defendant has now approached this Court through the present regular second appeal.

No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. I have heard Mr. Alok Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and with his assistance have also gone through the record of the case.

In the grounds of appeal, various reasons given by the learned Trial Court to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff have been reiterated.

However, from the perusal of the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court, I find that all the reasons given by the learned Trial Court have been duly considered and the findings have been reversed.

Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the pronote and receipt in question were duly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid finding, there is apparently a presumption in favour of passing of the consideration under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act. No evidence has been produced by the defendant to show that the said presumption was rebutted in any manner.

Accordingly, I do not find that the findings recorded by learned First Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.