TEJUMAL Vs. RAM PRATAP JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 12. 5. 98 passed in Civil Suit No. 17b/95 by the IInd Additional District Judge, Murwara, Dist. Jabalpur whereby the suit for recovery of Rs. 51,600/- was dismissed.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that on 23. 8. 1992 defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000 from the plaintiff for performing the marriage of his son's daughter and agreed to pay the interest of 2% per month and executed the 'hundi'. It is alleged that defendant even after service of notice has not returned the principal amount of Rs. 30,000/- and interest, total Rs. 51,600/-, plaintiff has prayed that the decree be passed of Rs. 51,600/- along with future interest and cost of the suit.

(3.) THE defendant has denied that he has taken Rs. 30,000/- as a loan and agreed to pay the interest. The defendant has further denied that the 'hundi' (Ex. P/1) was written and signed by him. Defendant has averred that the relationship of landlord and tenant is existing between the plaintiff and defendant and there was loan due on the defendant which had become time-barred. That the plaintiff has forged the 'hundi' and the false case is filed by the plaintiff and as such the compensatory cost of Rs. 2000/- be awarded to the defendant.