Sham Lal and another vs Firm Lal Chand Bishan Dass and others

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and the decree dated 25-9-1976 of the learned Additional District Judge, Jullundur, reversing that of the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Jullundur dated 6-11-1976 decreeing the suit of the appellants for recovery of Rs. 15,004/-.

The appellants had instituted a suit on 29-5-1963 alleging that there were mutual business relations between them and the respondents and in addition to that Bishan Dass respondent was a personal friend of Sham Lal, appellant and that on the basis of that relationship, respondent No. 3 Bishan Dass approached Sham Lal, appellant No. 1 with the request that his Firm needed Rs 12,800/- urgently and sought advance of that sum for a few days as ''Hath-Dasti and Imanat''. According to that plaint, Sham Lal, appellant did not have that much amount with him and was capable to arrange Rs. 6000/-only, but since Bishan Dass, respondent No. 3 requested him to borrow the amount from someone else, he borrowed Rs. 6,800/- from the Firm Jagan Nath Ram Lal and and on 1-6-1960 paid the amount of Rs. 12,800/- to the respondents and Lal Chand respondent No. 2 acknowledged the receipt of that amount through a Ruqa in favour ofappellant No. 1. After a few days Sham Lal appellant approached the respondents for the refund of the amount on 7-6-1960 and again on 14-6-1960 but the respondents refused to pay the same. Thereafter Sham Lal appellant filed a complaint on 17-6-1960 with the police on the basis of which the respondents were prosecuted u/s 406 I.P.C. but they were discharged as the matter was held to be of a civil nature. Through this suit the appellants had claimed the said amount of Rs. 12,800/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The trial Court as stated earlier, decreed the said suit in favour of the appellants for Rs. 15,004/- i.e. Rs. 12,800/- as principal plus Rs. 2204/- as interest. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Sub-Judge, the respondents went up in appeal to the District Court.

The learned Additional District Judge who heard the appeal has held that the Ruqa dated 1-6-1960 Ex. PX was without consideration and although the signatures of Lal Chand respondent No. 2 seems to be there, the document itself does not appear to have been executed by him voluntarily and possibly it had been fabricated by the appellants to wreak their vengenance on the respondents. In view of the above findings, he allowed the appeal of the respondents. The appellants have now come up in appeal before me.

Having heard the counsel for both the parties at lenght and scrutinising the evidence and documents on the record I concur with the finding and conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge. It would suffice to briefly narrate in chronological order the facts leading to the present litigation and these facts by themselves would speak out the falsehood of the claim in a suit made by the appellants.

On 16-2-1960, Maharaj Krishan, real brother of Sham Lal appellant filed a criminal complaint under sections 107/151, Cr. P.C. against Lal Chand respondent No. 2. Security proceedings against Lal Chand were initiated on the basis of this complaint. On 9-3-1960 as a counter-blast, Lal Chand respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint Ex. DW 10/1 u/ss 107/151, Cr. P.C. against Maharaj Krishan, and his brothers Sita Ram and Sham Lal and also their fahter Mastan Chand along with one Sarup Singh. It is not in dispute that the proceedings initiated on the basis of these two complaints continued till 22-12-1960 With this back drop, the allegation in the plaint is that on 31-5-1960 Bishan Dass bother of Lal Chand respondent and a partner of the respondent Firm approached Sham Lal appellant for a loan of Rs. 12,800/- as ''Hath Dasti and Imanat'' for a few days and that Sham Lal was good enough to arrange Bs. 6,800/- from another Firm M/s Jagan Nath Ram Lal through its partner Hardev Singh and paid Rs. 6000/- from his own Firm thus making the total of Rs. 12,800/-. It is alleged that though the amount was demanded by Bishan Dass, it was received by Lal Chand respondent who signed Ruqa Ex. PX, in black ink which is otherwise scribed by one Ram Lal in the presence of Hardev Singh partner of M/s Jagan Nath Ram Lal. In support of this transaction of loan, the entry in the books of M/s Jagan Nath Ram Lal of having advanced Rs. 6800/- to the Firm of Sham Lal appellant i.e. M/s Sham Lal Masian Chand has been produced on the record. Likewise, an entry of the same date in the books of M/s Sham Lai Mastan Chand for having received loan from M/s Jagan Nath Ram Lal to the tune of Rs. 6800/- has also been produced. The subsequent events follow in quick succession. Within a week of the said loan, Sham Lal appellant requested Lal Chand on 7-6-1960 for return of the amount of Rs. 12,800/-. Since the amount was not returned, another request was made by him on 14-6-1960 which was also not complied with. Sham Lal hastened to file a criminal complaint on 17-6-1960 alleging breach of trust and misappropriation of amount of loan by Lal Chand u/s 406, I.P C. This complaint was, however, dismissed on 4-10-1960. As it appears, there was no love lost between the parties and rather they were busy in implicating each other in civil or criminal litigation. Now it was the turn of Lal Chand who filed a suit on 3 11-1961 against Sham Lal and others for damages for malicious prosecution, which was eventually decreed. It appears that as a retaliation and for the purpose of substantiating the allegation that Lal Chand had received a loan of Rs 12,800/- through the Ruqa Ex. PX a suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents on 29-5-1963, for recovery of said amount of Rs 12,800/- along with interest.

The above facts bring forth various features which suppport the conclusion of the learned Additional District Judge that no loan had in fact been advanced by Sham Lal Chand and the Ruqa Ex. PX was not voluntarily executed by Lal Chand and appears to have been fabricated over the signatures of Lal Chand on some paper which some how came into the hands of Sham and his associates Firstly, it is hard to believe that in the context of the criminal litigation already going on between the parties, Bishan Dass, a brother and partner of Lal Chand, would ever approach Sham Lal for advancement of the loan of Rs. 12,800/-. For the same reason, it is not worth credence that Sham Lal having with him arrangement of Rs. 6000/-only, would go all the way to arrange Rs. 6,800/-from another Firm M/s Jagan Nath Ram Lal and hand over the full amount of Rs 12,800/- to Lal Chand. It is undisputed that Lal Chand is a literate person. His signatures on the Ruqa Ex. PX reinforces this fact. In spite of this, the Ruqa is alleged to have been scribed by one Ram Lal in the presence of Hardev Singh No reason is advanced, why Lal Chand himself did not execute the Ruqa Ex. PX. Again, while the text of the Ruqa is in blue ink, the signatures of Lal Chand are in black ink. Further, if so much magnanimity had been shown by Sham Lal in advancing a loan of Rs. 12,800/- to Lal Chand, it is hard to believe that he would demand back the amount of loan within a week of its advancement and repeat his request for the return of the same by 14-6-1960 and then rush to file the criminal comlaint for misappropriation and breach of trust qua that amount against Lal Chand u/s 406, I.P.C., three days thereafter on 17-6-1960. As mentioned above, it appears that after the dismissal of this complaint, the matter might not have been pursued further by Sham Lal in resorting to institution of the present suit on 29-5-1963 for recovery of the said amount of Rs. 12,800/- along with interest. The cause for this suit is apparently the suit filed by Lal Chand for the recovery of Rs. 6000/- as damages for malicious prosecution against Sham Lai on 3-11-1960 which as stated above was eventually decreed.

The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to the entry dated 1-6-1960 in the books of account of M/s Lal Chand Bishan Dass in respect of receipt of a sum of Rs. 12,800/- from Mohd. Shaffi and Mohd. Din. He has further brought to my notice the fact that according to the books of the said Firm the said amount of Rs. 12,800/- was deposited in the State Bank of India on 2-6-1960. On this basis he contends that the allegation of the appellants that the amount of Rs 12,800/- was advanced to the respondents stands borne out particularly when Lal Chand in the witness-box could not satisfactory explain the entry of Rs. 2,800/- regarding receipt of the amount from Mohd Shaffi and Mohd. Din It is difficult to accept this contention. As rightly observed by the learned Additional District Judge, the possibility cannot be ruled out that it is this entry and deposit of the amount corresponding to this entry by M/s Lal Chand Bishan Dass in the State Bank of India on 2-6-1960 which might have actuated the appellants to cook up the entries in their own books of accounts in collusion with Hardev Singh, partner of M/s Jagan Nath Ram Lal to raise a false claim against the respondents with a view to give cause for another litigation following the criminal litigations which were already pending between the parties. The matter can be viewed from another angle. If Lal Chand had received the amount of Rs. 12,800/- from the appellants and did not need the same, he as businessman working in the same market would have returned the amount to the appellants instead of depositing this sum in the account of his Firm in the State Bank on 2-6-1960.

I, therefore, find no reason to differ with the conclusion of the learned Additional District Judge, Jullundur and hold that no amount was in fact advanced by the appellants to the respondents and the document Ex. PX was fabricated on the signatures of Lal Chand on some plain paper. Finding no force in this appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their on costs.