LAXMILAL Vs. AJIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/defendant has directed this appeal against the judgment and dercee dated 27th November, 1990, passed by I Additional District Judge, Neemuch, District Mandsaur, whereby learned Judge decreed the suit against the appellant filed by the respondent for the recovery of Rs. 37,232/- together with future interest as stated in the decree and the costs of the suit.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the respondent/ plaintiff failed suit against the appellant for the recovery of Rs. 37276/- based on promissory note Exh. P/ 1 and the receipt Exh. P/2 executed by the appellant on receiving cash consideration of Rs. 45000. It is stated that the appellant/defendant paid Rs. 25000/- against the aforesaid transaction and did not pay remaining amount even after service of demand on the appellant. As such the suit was filed for the recovery of the balance amount together with accrued interest till date of the suit at the rate of 18% per annum.

(3.) THE appellant filed written statement and contested the suit. In the written statement, initially the appellant denied plaint allegation and prayed for dismissal of the suit. In a special pleading, the defendant contended that the suit-pronote and the receipt were executed by him with regard to the agreement of the sale of the house situated at Manak chal, Neemuch Cantt. between the appellant/defendant and father of the respondent. It was alleged that in connection with the aforesaid agreement to sell the house, father of the respondent paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the defendant but the said agreement could not be executed, therefore, father of the appellant got executed three different promissory notes from the appellants in the name of his son, present plaintiff, daughter-in-law Pushpabai, and one promissory note in favour of his wife, Sajanbai. The contention of the appellant/defendant in his written statement is that the suit-pronote was executed without passing of any consideration and on this ground also he prayed for dismissal of the suit. The defendant also raised objections with regard to deficit stamps duty paid on pronote and also under the Provisions of Madhya pradesh Money Lenders Act.