SOHAN LAL Vs. LALA MANGI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' second appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 12,000/- on the; basis of a promissory note which was dismissed by the trial court but has been decreed by the lower appellate court.

(2.) The defendants were three in number, namely, (1) Sohan Lal. son of Sri Nathan (2) Khoni, son of Bhoodar Mal, (3) Bhoodar Mal Sohan Lal, through defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff pleaded:

(3.) Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed separate written statements. The first defendant Sohan Lal denied that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were the members of an undivided Hindu family and said that there was no question of them both being the Kartas. The allegation that the defendants had borrowed Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff on 24th Aug., 1964, or at any time, was denied as untrue and the allegation that they executed any promissory note and receipt on 24th Aug., 1964, or at any time, in favour of the plaintiff was also denied as untrue. The first defendant further pleaded that he had entered into certain business transaction in grain and gur with the Firm Jayanti Prasad Rajendra Kumar and an account was maintained in the name of Bhoodar Mal Sohan Lal in the books of that firm in connection with that business; that the answering first defendant needed Rs. 2000/- and borrowed it from one Sonpal and gave him a blank promissory note and receipt duly signed by him on revenue stamps, that that promissory note was not signed by the second defendant whose real name is Nanak Chand; that Sonapal's account was paid off by the answering first defendant on 21st May, 1967 and a receipt was obtained by him in lieu of the same; that when the answering first defendant asked for the return of the promissory note and the receipt, Sonpal informed him that they had been lost and that he had already reported the loss to the police, and that he would return the documents whenever found; that the answering first defendant was the Sarpanch of village Bathain Kalan; that the plaintiff was a resident of that place and there was enmity between the answering first defendant and his brother Vidhi Chand and others; that the plaintiff is the own brother of Sonpal and either Sonpal was in collusion with the plaintiff and had filed the suit after forging a promissory note on the blank forms signed by the answering first defendant or that the plaintiff had somehow obtained those documents and had filed the suit after forging a promissory note on them; that the second defendant never signed any such documents in the presence of the answering first defendant and that his signatures were forged. It was also urged in the alternative that the promissory note had become illegal -and void on account of the various material alterations made thereon. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had become dishonest and had filed the suit for unlawful gain, that a perusal of the promissory note showed that the need for taking loan was shown to be purchase of a tractor but the answering first defendant had purchased the tractor by taking a loan of Rupees 15,000/- from the Land Mortgage Bank and Rs. 4000/- from Kosi Society and never had any need to borrow that amount from the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that it appeared from the promissory note and the receipt that they were written by one Hari Ram, who was a Dalai and did commission agency business and was on inimical terms with the answering first defendant; and that Dulah Ram and others were the particular friends of the plaintiff against whom the answering first defendant stood surety in criminal cases and Pyare Lal who was supposed to be a witness was Sonpal's wife's brother, while Deo Kishan, who purports to be the other witness was found on enquiry to be that very Deo Kishan whose cousin brother Slier Singh and the plaintiff's son Phool Chand were members of the same party in the Municipal Board and were great friends and further that Sher Singh's father used to sit on the plaintiff's commission agency shop and Suraj Mal was also a neighbour of the plaintiff and a man of his party.