Tejinder Kaur vs Amarjit Singh

M. Jeyapaul, J.

CM-2138-C-2013

As the main case itself has been taken up for disposal, the application stands dismissed as infructuous.

RSA-764-2013

Against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the defendant who borrowed a sum of Rs. 2 lacs from the plaintiff agreeing to pay interest @ 2% per month on execution of pronote and receipt dated 25.10.2005, was bound to pay said amount with interest and cost, rejecting the defence set up by the defendant that a sum of Rs. 80,000/- was payable by the plaintiff to the defendant, the defendant preferred the present appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently submit that Ex. D1, a receipt produced by the defendant would go to establish that a sum of Rs. 80,000/- was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. Therefore, the question of receipt of Rs. 2 lacs as adumbrated in the pronote Ex. P1 and receipt Ex. P2 allegedly executed on 25.10.2005, does not arise for consideration. The case of the plaintiff is completely falsified by the receipt passed on by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant under Ex. D1, it is further submitted. The Courts below have not properly evaluated the impact of receipt Ex. D1 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant.

I also heard the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respondent.

PW1, the plaintiff in the case, PW2 one of the witnesses to the pronote Ex. P1 and PW3, witness as well as scribe of the said document have categorically spoken to the effect that the defendant having received a consideration of Rs. 2 lacs executed the pronote Ex. P1 and receipt Ex. P2 and agreed to pay interest on the principal amount. In my view, both the Courts have rightly come to a conclusion based on the above unassailable evidence that the defendant having received the said amount executed the document Exs. P1 and P2.

Coming to the defence set up by the defendant that the plaintiff having received a sum of Rs. 80,000/- executed the receipt Ex. D1, I find that the plaintiff very fairly admitted that his signature was found in Ex. D1. But he had deposed that he did not know how the said document came into existence.

It is true that the plaintiff admitted his signature in Ex. D1. Mere admission of the signature does not prove the content and passing of consideration referred therein. Those aspects not admitted by the plaintiff will have to be established only by the defendant who introduced Ex. D1. The witness to Ex. D1 was not examined by the defendant to establish the content of Ex. D1 and passing of consideration. Therefore, the defendant cannot legally contend without proving Ex. D1 that Exs. P1 and P2 would not have come into existence. I find that the Courts below have rightly evaluated the evidence on record and come to a conclusion and ultimately decreed the suit.

The appeal fails and therefore, it stands dismissed.