SARUP CHAND Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated January 5, 1976, whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the two Courts below for the recovery of Rs. 5,153/- in favour of the plaintiff-appellant was reversed.

(2.) The appellant filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Sangrur for the recovery of Rs. 9,500/- against the respondent on the ground that the respondent had borrowed various sums from the appellant from time to time. After accounting for the previous loans, a balance of Rs. 9,500/- was struck by him in favour of the appellant on January 12, 1969, in the bahi of the appellant. The writing had been scribed by Shri Faqiria Mal, wherein the respondent stipulated to make the payment of the said amount by Hari 2026 BK. This was contested by the respondent and it was averred in the written statement that he had taken only a sum of Rs. 400/- about ten years before the filing of the suit and in lieu thereof, had executed a writing for Rs. 480/- in favour of the appellant and the said debt had been discharged by giving the appellant a buffalo worth Rs. 1,000/-. The execution of the writing, in dispute, pertaining to the balance of Rs. 9,500/- was denied. According to the further averment of the respondent, his thumb-impression had been fraudulently obtained by the appellant on some paper. Another ground taken was that the appellant being a money lender, it was imperative for him to send six monthly accounts to him. The same having not been sent, the appellant was not entitled to any interest. After framing of the issues, evidence was adduced on both sides. The writing, in dispute, bearing the thumb-impression of the respondent was proved by scribe Faqiria Mal, P.W. 2. The thumb-impression on the same was further proved by the statement of Shri K.S. Puri, Document Expert, P.W. 1, according to whom, the specimen thumb impression of the respondent tallied with the disputed thumb impression. The appellant himself entered the witness-box and proved in his statement, the various amounts which had been advanced by him as loan to the respondent from time to time, from his bahi; the total being Rs. 5,153/-. The thumb-impressions of the respondent on various entries relating to the advancement of these loans were also proved. The trial Subordinate Judge came to the firm conclusion that the payment of the principal amount of Rs. 5,153/- in the form of cash, loaned from time to time by the appellant to the respondent was cogently proved. However, having come to the conclusion that the appellant was proved to be a money lender and had failed to send six monthly accounts to the debtor as required under the Punjab Regulation of Accounts Act, the claim of the appellant for interest amounting to Rs. 4,347/- was disallowed. Consequently, decree for Rs. 5,153/- was passed in favour of the appellant. The appeal by the respondent did not succeed and the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, dismissed the same concurring with the finding of the trial Subordinate Judge regarding the advancement of loans, as referred to above. Aggrieved by the same, regular second appeal was filed which has been allowed and the decree in favour of the appellant has been set aside, by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant failed to prove the consideration regarding the writing, in dispute, as envisaged under Section 12 of the Punjab Debtors Protection Act, (hereinafter called the Act), cannot be sustained and the concurrent finding of fact by the trial Court and the first appellate Court regarding the advancement of loans, was wrongly reversed. The same is not without merit.