GANPAT LAL SAHU Vs. MANRAKHAN KANNAUJE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Legal Representatives of deceased Defendant No.1 Ganpat Lal Sahu, except Defendant No.1-B Phuldas Sahu, and Defendant No.2 Teerath Das, have preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.8-B/2008, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon, has decreed the Plaintiff's claim for recovery of a sum of Rs.60,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its realization. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the Court below.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff instituted a suit claiming recovery of Rs.60,000/- submitting, inter alia, that on 28.03.2008, the Defendants had borrowed from him the said amount on loan in order to meet out their household affairs, like marriage purpose, and executed an 'Ikrarnama' in this regard agreeing to refund the same within a period of two months. It is pleaded further that despite of his oral demand of the said loan amount and also of issuing a demand notice dated 18.06.2008 immediately after completion of the said period of two months, it was not refunded. Therefore, he has been constrained to institute the suit in the instant nature, instituted on 26.07.2008.

(3.) While denying the execution of the alleged 'Ikrarnama', it is pleaded by the Defendants that they have never obtained any loan amount, much less, a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the Plaintiff, as alleged by him. It is contended further that they, in fact, obtained the loan amount from the Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank in order to run the hotel business where the plaintiff was made as a guarantor. According to them, the plaintiff, in order to secure his amount, if required to be paid by him as a guarantor in case of their default in squaring up the loan of the said Bank, obtained their signatures on a blank stamped paper worth Rs.50/- at that particular time. It is contended further that the alleged 'Ikrarnama' was a forged and fabricated document, and therefore, the claim as made based upon it, deserves to be dismissed.