CHOUDHURY MADHUSUDAN DAS Vs. JOGI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit was filed for recovery of a Sum of Rs. 375 - on the basis of a handnote (ext. 1) dated 15 -12 -1964: in respect of a loan of Rs. 200 -. Plaintiff 's case was that the Defendant paid Rs. 5 - and made an endorsement (ext. 18.) on the back of the pro note on 3 -12 -1957. Rs. 20. was paid on 21 -11 -1960 and another endorsement (ext. lb) was also made. Plaintiff is a registered money -lender and had taken license for Rs. 10,000 - in December, 1954. The license was renewed in 1956 -57 for an enhanced amount of Rs. 25,000 -. Defendant denied the loan and the execution of the handnote. His case was that he was dealing in bell metal utensils as a hawker by taking those utensils from one Satyabadi Mohanty of his village. He had handed over, by way of security, a piece of paper in which on a revenue stamp he wrote in his own hand that he borrowed Rs. 200. as loan on that day. He admits his signature and thumb impression towards the bottom of the paper. His positive case is that the body of the hand note has been subsequently written in between the two thumb impression given by him. Thus he denies the execution of the hand note in the manner stated above. After the cessation of his dealings with Satyabadi Mohanty, he settled the accounts and wanted back the Kaida. Satyabadi did not return it saying that it was at. Bhingarpur. Defendant believed in him and did not press for its return. The said paper has been utilised as a handnote in the name of the Plaintiff under whom Satyabadi served.

(2.) THE learned S.C.C. Judge dismissed the suit on two findings -

(3.) THE learned Judge did not accept the defence version that he handed over Ext. 1 by way of security. In support of his case, only d.w. 2 has been examined. He stated that the Defendant did not put any thumb impression on the paper but merely affixed his signature contrary to the admission of the Defendant himself.