SHANKARRAO YESHVANTRAO CHAVAN Vs. HARI BABAJI PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-original defendant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur dated 27-7-1981 in special Civil Suit No.77 of 1978. The respondent-original plaintiff has filed a suit against the present appellant for recovery of the amount in connection with the pro-note executed by the defendant on 12-8-1975.

(2.) IT is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that he is the owner and proprietor of the shop situated at Shahu Market Yard, Kolhapur. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 12-8-1975 the defendant took Rs.20,000 as a loan for the agriculture of sugarcane and on the very day the defendant has executed a pro-note in presence of the plaintiff. The said promissory note was scribed by one Shri Shivaji Daulu Patil and he has also put his signature on the pro-note in the presence of the plaintiff. The defendant had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1% per annum. Thereafter on 5-12-1977 the defendant again took Rs.6000.00 as loan for cultivation of sugarcane crop and executed another pro-note. The said pro-note was also executed and signed by the defendant in his presence. The said pro-note was scribed by Shri Keshav Dnyanu Patil and he has also attested the said pro-note in his presence. Accordingly the plaintiff has filed the suit to recover the amount of Rs.33,680.00 calculating the interest on the principal amount. The defendant has neglected returning the said money inspite of the demand from the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is having money-lending licence and inspite of furnishing statement of account in favour of the defendant on 12-8-1975 the defendant has failed to repay the amount. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has given the statement in Form No.8 as required under the Money Lending Act.

(3.) AS per the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff, witness No.1 Shripatrao Hari Patil at Exhibit-25. He has narrated about the execution of the pro-note on 12-8-1975 and 5-12-1977 wherein the defendant has on executing the pro-note, received Rs.20,000 and Rs.6000 respectively and the said pro-note are proved at Exhibits-3/1 and 3/2. He has also produced the money-lending licence. He has also produced the accounts which was kept and maintained day to day regularly. The defendant has 40 acres of land, out of which on 14 to 15 acres of land he grows sugarcane. He has also given statement in Form No.8 on 12-8-1975 as provided under the Money Lenders Act and the defendant has also put his signature on the counter-foil of the said form which is also on record at Exhibits-22/11 and 22/12. It is also found from his evidence that every year he used to send statement to the defendant by post under certificate of posting and the certificate of posting were also produced on record. In the cross-examination it is found that the witness has stated that he has dealings with the defendants since about seven years. The witness has also denied that all the dues to him from defendant were satisfied upto 1972 and no amount was paid to the defendant as per the promissory notes. The witness has admitted that he had not issued any notice to the defendant demanding the amount of loan of Rs.20,000.00. The witness has also denied the suggestion that Exhibit-3/2 was written on two occasions in different ink and further that the suit promissory note do not bear the signature of the defendant. The witness has also admitted that the defendant has nowhere put the signature on his books. The witness has denied that he has prepared false account books.