LAWS(BOM)-2004-7-76

VASANTA SAHADEOJI BHOYAR Vs. WALMIK SHIVAJI BANSOD

Decided On July 15, 2004
VASANTA, SAHADEOJI BHOYAR Appellant
V/S
WALMIK SHIVAJI BANSOD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal has been filed by the original Defendant/appellant herein, against the original plaintiff-respondent herein, and thereby challenged the judgment and decree dated 1st August, 1991, passed in regular Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1990 whereby, judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil suit No. 88 of 1985 dated 4th April, 1990, was set aside and modified and thereby, directed the defendant to pay; the Suit amount with interest and costs. The Second Appeal was admitted on 27th November, 1991, on the following question of law :

(2.) THE appellant had filed Suit no. 88 of 1985 against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 4,200/- as hand loan based on the agreement dated 13th February, 1982. As the respondent did not repay the said amount, notice was sent to repay the said loan amount. There was no reply to the said notice. Therefore, Suit was filed. The respondent resisted the same by Written Statement and apart from other, the said agreement was denied. The parties led evidence, including expert's evidence. The agreement in question, filed in the Suit, was not exhibited. The learned trial Judge, therefore, held that the appellant failed to prove the payment of Rs. 4,200/- on 13th February, 1982 to the respondent as the agreement itself was not proved. It was held that the Suit agreement was a false, fake and forged document and, therefore, the Suit itself was dismissed.

(3.) THE respondent, therefore, preferred a Regular Appeal No. 80 of 1990. The first Appellate Court, after considering the material, as well as, the evidence on record including the documents in question, held that on 30th September, 1982, the appellant obtained hand loan of Rs. 4,200/- by executing the agreement in question and, therefore, reversed the Trial Court judgment and decree and the said Suit was allowed and decreed, as prayed. Being dissatisfied and affected by the same, appellant-original defendant has preferred the present Second Appeal.