RADHA RAMAN Vs. BHOGI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.1967 passed by the first Additional Civil Judge, Agra. The plaintiff appellant brought suit for recovery of money on the basis of a pronote and receipt for Rs. 1,000/- at 2% p.m. interest. Respondent's contention was that he did not execute the Pronote and receipt and that he had nit taken any loan from the appellant. The respondent, however, admitted his thumb-impression on the pronote and the receipt. The trial court decreed the appellant's suit in toto. But the Additional Civil Judge on the basis of an admission or statement made by the appellant in session case found tint the principal amount was Rs. 350/- only and as such he reduced the deceretal amount from Rs. 1.200/- to Rs. 504/-. Sri G. D. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the respondent had admitted his thumb-impression on the pronote and the receipt the burden lay upon him to prove that he had not executed the pronote and receipt for the consideration shown therein. It will be noticed that the res pondent simply admitted his thumb-impression. He did not admit the execution of pronote and the receipt. Had he admitted the execution of the pronote, the onus would have certainly lay on him to show that the consideration was not what was shown in the pronote. As the respondent had simply admitted his thumb-impression on the pronote and receipt and as it is evident that the respondent is an illiterate person to whom the law gives protection, it was the duty of the appellant to have fully proved that the respondent had executed the pronote and the receipt knowing fully well that they were for a surn of Rs. 1,000/- Not only this, it was the duty of the appellant to establish that he had actually advanced a sum of Rs. 1,000/, to the respondent. In this aspect of the matter the contention of Sri Srivastava has no legs to stand. Another noticeable feature in the case is that the defendant could show by the very admission of the appellant that the appellant had not advanced Rs. 1,000/- to him. It is undisputed that the appellant had stated in a sessions trial that he had advanced Rs. 350/- only to the respondent. THIS admission clearly belied the appellant's case that he had advanced Rs. 1,000/- on the basis of the pronote and the receipt. An admission operates as an estoppel and can appropriately be used against its maker. No doubt the maker can explain and show that the admission made by him was erroneous. The appellant did make an attempt in this behalf by saying that he stated lesser amount with the intention of showing that he was not interested in the party concerned in the sessions court. Had he completely denied the relationship of creditor and debtor between him and the party concerned, the explanation could have been more satisfactory. There was no reason to reduce the amount of loan. Redu ction in the amount of loan could not have benefited the party concerned in the sessions trial. No reasonable person would accept such an explanation. The Additional Civil Judge was wholly justified in not accepting the expla nation. In the result the appellant is bound by his own admission and he has to suffer for it. For what has been said above there is absolutely no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. Costs in this court will be borne by the parties.