MEENA RAI Vs. NEETA SEETA RAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, FTC Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.33-B/2003 dtd. 30/9/2008 wherein and whereby, the civil suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and the defendant/appellant was directed to make payment of Rs.80,000.00 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It is also observed that the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 25/8/2005 and it was restored on 15/6/2007, therefore, the plaintiff would not be entitled to get interest for that period.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.80,000.00 with interest @ 18% per annum on the ground that a loan of Rs.1,00,000.00 was advanced to the defendant and agreement Ex.P/1 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant on 8/9/1995 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Mahipat Singh and D.N. Tiwari. A stamp paper of Rs.10.00 was purchased by the defendant herself on 6/9/1995. The agreement would reveal that an amount of Rs.20,000.00 was refunded by the defendant to the plaintiff on 25/3/1997. The back-leaf of the stamp paper was signed by the plaintiff in the presence of two witnesses but it does not contain the signature of the defendant. The defendant failed to refund the balance amount, therefore, registered legal notice was sent on 29/10/1998 but when the defendant failed to make payment, a civil suit was filed on 18/1/1999. It is further pleaded that the defendant was indulged in the business of beauty parlour and she was in need of Rs.1,00,000.00. She approached the plaintiff and in turn, the plaintiff requested one Mahipat Singh, who was a moneylender and managed an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00. As per further pleading, Mahipat Singh withdrew Rs.60,000.00 from his bank account, took a loan of Rs.20,000.00 from D.N.Tiwari and Rs.20,000.00 cash, a total of Rs.1,00,000.00 was given to the defendant by the plaintiff on the date of execution of the agreement. It is further pleaded that an amount of Rs.20,000.00 was refunded by the defendant to the plaintiff on 25/3/1997 in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Mahipat Singh and D.N. Tiwari. The defendant filed a written statement and took a specific plea that a stamp paper was purchased by the defendant for the execution of a joint tenancy agreement and no loan was obtained by her. It is further pleaded that the defendant opened a beauty parlour after obtaining a loan from the bank and other sources. It is further pleaded that on 25/3/1997, Rs.20,000.00 was not refunded to the plaintiff and the entry made in this regard is a forged one.

(3.) Learned Trial Court framed issues and held that an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant on 8/9/1995; Rs.1,00,000.00 was advanced as a loan by the plaintiff to the defendant; Rs.20,000.00 was refunded by the defendant on 25/3/1997, Ex.P/1 stamp paper is admissible in evidence and suit is within limitation.