JANGIR SINGH Vs. FIRM HARI CHAND OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I will dispose of R.S.A. No. 2037 of 1979 titled Jangir Singh v. Firm Hari Chand Om Parkash and R.S.A. No. 2613 of 1979 titled Firm Hari Chand Om Parkash v. Jangir Singh, as both these appeals have arisen from the judgment and decree dated 1.6.1979 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 12.1.1979 passed by the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Mansa who partly decreed the money suit in favour of M/s Firm Hari Chand Om Parkash and granted a money decree only to the extent of Rs. 7,300/ - and the rest of the claim of the concern was dismissed.

(2.) SHRI Hari Chand son of Basanta Mal, was the sole proprietor of the firm M/s Hari Chand Om Parkash. He filed a money suit for the recovery of Rs. 16,000/ - against Shri Jangir Singh son of Shri Bura Singh on the allegations that on 3.1.1975 and on 22.4.1975, defendant Shri Jangir Singh obtained a loan of Rs. 5,300/ - and Rs. 7,300/ - respectively and executed for the first loan of Rs. 5,300/ - a Bahi entry and for the second a pronote in favour of the plaintiff promising to return the amount on demand with interest at the rate of Rs. 1.56 paise per cent per month. Both these documents were thumb -marked by the defendants in token of their correctness. The receipt under the pronote was also attested by the witnesses mentioned therein. It was alleged that defendant was called upon several times to make the payment of the loan but to no effect. Hence the suit.

(3.) NOTICE of the suit was given to the defendant who contested the same. In the written statement Shri Jangir Singh showed ignorance if Hari Chand alone was the sole proprietor of the firm but admitted that the plaintiff -firm carried on its business at Budhlada. Regarding the transactions in question, he stated that he never obtained any loan either of Rs. 5,300/ - or of Rs. 7,300/ - from the plaintiff. He explained that he used to bring his agriculture produce at the shop of the plaintiff for the last 15 years and the plaintiff on sale of the same used to enter the amount in his Bahis. He used to take the amount off and on against the sale of his produce. He stated that he being a simpleton and illiterate, if the plaintiff obtained his thumb -impressions on any paper, he has not bound by the same as he knows nothing about the transaction. It was also pleaded for the defendant that plaintiff was a money lender and the suit is not maintainable for want of money lending licence.