Roop Singh and another vs Angrej Singh

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendants Roop Singh and Chhinder Singh having lost in both the courts below have filed this second appeal.

Respondent-plaintiff Angrej Singh filed suit against defendants/appellants for recovery of Rs. 1,76,800/- alleging that the defendants on 11.9.2003

borrowed Rs. 1,30,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 2% per month and executed pronote and receipt for the

same. Reference was also made to another loan of Rs. 1,35,000/- taken by defendant No. 2 on 1.9.2003 by executing pronote and receipt and

also to agreement to sell dated 15.10.2004 executed by defendant No. 2 for sale of 4 marlas land with construction and Saw Mill machinery in

running condition. The plaintiff qua the present loan of Rs. 1,30,000/- claimed interest @ 1% per month only. The defendants failed to pay the loan

and interest amount. The plaintiff sought recovery of Rs. 1,30.000/- as principal amount and Rs. 46,800/- as interest i.e. total amount of Rs.

1,76,800/-.

Defendants broadly controverted the plaint averments. They denied having taken loan of Rs. 1,30,000/- from the plaintiff, It was pleaded that

plaintiff is near relative of defendant No. 2. Plaintiff became partner in business of defendant No. 2 who was running Saw Mill. The plaintiff is Head

Constable in Punjab Police. The plaintiff used to obtain pronote and receipt from defendant No. 2 and also obtained signatures of defendant No. 2

on stamp paper as security for plaintiffs share in the business of purchase and sale of wood etc. The plaintiff has also filed two other suits regarding

alleged loan of Rs. 1,35,000/- and regarding alleged agreement to sell against defendant No. 2. The said suits were also alleged to be based on

false and fabricated documents and so also the present suit. It was also pleaded that plaintiff had already extracted huge amount from defendant

No. 2 in cash and kind.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009 decreed the plaintiffs suit for recovery of Rs.

1,76,800/- with pendente lite interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum

from the date of decree till recovery. First appeal preferred by defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide

judgment and decree dated 9.12.2011. Feeling still aggrieved, defendants have filed this second appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.

The plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box and examined scribe of impugned pronote-cum-receipt. Both of them have stated according to

the plaintiffs version On the other hand, both the defendants appeared in the witness box and broadly stated according to their version. They also

examined Mander Singh DW3, a witness of impugned pronote-cum- receipt. He stated that no amount was paid in his presence.

Defendant No. 1 appearing as witness has admitted his signatures on impugned pronote-cum-receipt. Vinod Kumar Manchanda, PW2, scribe

of the pronote-cum-receipt specifically stated that the amount mentioned in the pronote-cum-receipt was paid in his presence by plaintiff to

defendants. Plaintiff has also made statement about payment of the loan amount by him to the defendants. Mander Singh DW3 has stated that he is

witness of the pronote-cum-receipt in question. Consequently, bald oral statements of defendants and Mander Singh are not sufficient to prove that

the impugned pronote-cum-receipt was executed without consideration. There is positive evidence led by plaintiff that consideration amount was

paid. Execution of pronote and receipt in question stands admitted and is not seriously disputed by the defendants and is also otherwise duly

proved by evidence of the plaintiff. There is presumption u/s 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the pronote was executed for

consideration. The said presumption has not been rebutted.

Version of the defendants is also inherently and intrinsically unreliable. If plaintiff became partner in business with defendant No. 2, there was no

reason for defendant No. 2 to execute any pronote and receipt or agreement in favour of plaintiffs security. Both plaintiff and defendant No. 2

were on equal footing as partners as per version of the defendants and therefore, neither of them would execute any document in favour of the

other as security. Moreover, in the instant case, there is not only pronote and receipt in question of the present case but also there is another

pronote and receipt allegedly executed by defendant No. 2 and also an agreement to sell allegedly executed by defendant No. 2. It does not

appeal to reason that defendant No. 2 would execute all these documents without any consideration. Besides it, there is no reason why defendant

No. 1 would join defendant No. 2 to execute the impugned pronote and receipt. Not even a word has been whispered in this regard in the written

statement. Defendants have also alleged that plaintiff has extracted huge amount from defendant No. 2 in cash and kind. There is no reason why

defendant No. 2 would part with the same in favour of the plaintiff. There is no explanation for the same.

Counsel for the appellants contended that Mander Singh DW3 witness of impugned pronote-cum-receipt has stated that no consideration was

paid in his presence and therefore, payment of consideration is not proved. The contention cannot be accepted for the reasons already recorded

hereinbefore. As a necessary consequence of the discussion aforesaid, I find that concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below to decree

the suit of the plaintiff is fully justified by the evidence on record. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misappreciation

or misreading of evidence on record. The said finding rather is the only reasonable finding that can be arrived at on appreciation of the evidence on

record. The said finding, therefore, does not warrant interference. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication

in this second appeal. The appeal is bereft of any merit and is therefore, dismissed in limine.