BHAGGU Vs. MANNI PRASAD PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 2040/- representing principal and interest on account of money advanced to the appellant by the respondent on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 2-1-1952. It was alleged that the appellant had borrowed Rs. 1,500/- from the respondent and had agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 2/- per cent per mensem and had executed a pronote dated 2-1-1952. The respondent alleged that the amount due on the aforesaid loan had not been paid and, therefore, the suit in appeal was instituted. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that no amount had been advanced by the respondent to the appellant and that the appellants signatures .had been obtained by one Moti Lal on a blank promote. The appellant, however, admitted that he received only Rs. 150/- and alleged that subsequently the amount of Rs. 150/- was converted into Rs. 1500/-. The trial Court held that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that the respondent was a creditor and had advanced Rs. 1500/- to the appellant as contended by him. It further found that there was material alteration and interpolation in the pronote and the receipt which established that the consideration was only Rs. 150/- and not Rs. 1500/-. On the aforesaid finding the trial Court dismissed the suit. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Court below which reversed the decision of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the respondent had established that Rs. 1500/- had been advanced by him to the appellant and thus decreed the suit. The defendant has now come in second appeal in this Court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for me appellant contended that the pronote and the receipt itself indicated that alterations had been made in the pro-note and the initial figure of Rs. 150/-. Had been converted into that of Rs. 1500/-. Learned counsel or the respondent contended that the suit was, in fact, not based on the promissory note and that the claim was made for the recovery of the above amount due to the respondent. He further stressed that the finding arrived at by the Court below was a finding of fact and it could not be assailed in second appeal before me. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that initially the appellant had alleged that there was a partnership between him and Moti Lal and it was Moti Lal who had obtained his signature on a blank pro-note and receipt, it was held by both the Courts below that this plea of the appellant was not substantiated. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that since the aforesaid plea of the appellant has been disbelieved the court below was right in basing its findings on the evidence on the record, which fully established that an amount of Rs. 1500/- had been advanced by the respondent to the appellant. The pronote was executed simultaneously with the alleged payment of Rs. 1500/- by the respondent to the appellant on 2-1-1952. It was alleged in the plaint that the appellant took Rs. 1500/- on 2-1-1952 and agreed to pay interest at Rs. 2/- per mensem and further agreed to pay the amount borrowed on demand by the creditor. It was further alleged that the appellant gave a promissory note and a receipt to the respondent for his satisfaction. The learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contended that the suit was not on the basis of the aforesaid promissory note but was for the recovery of the amount advanced to the appellant and that the promissory note and the receipt had been executed by way of collateral security. I am not prepared to hold that the suit was not on the basis of the promissory note itself. In any case, it is clear that the promissory note and the receipt were executed simultaneously with the amount advanced by the respondent to the appellant and the aforesaid document is undoubtedly a document which was the basis of the claim of the respondent against the appellant.

(3.) THE learned counsel contended before me that in a case like the present the rule of caution and prudence required that the Court should not arrive at a finding on the question whether there was interpolation in the receipt or not without the assistance of a handwriting expert. He relied on two decisions of this Court in Darshan Singh v. Parbhu Singh, AIR 1946 All 67 and Azmat Ullah Khan v. Shyam Lal, AIR 1947 All 411. In AIR 1946 All 67 (supra) it was observed as follows :