SURINDER SINGH Vs. JAGPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal. Trial Court had decreed the suit but the judgment was reversed by the appellate Court.

(2.) Allegations of the plaintiff in brief are that one Jagpal Singh contesting defend ant-respondent No. 1 had borrowed a sum of Rs. 7000/- from Gurbachan Singh defendant No. 2 at Ladwa, District Karnal on the March, 1968. Pronote Ex. P/1 and receipt Ex P/2 were executed. It was asserted that Gurbachan Singh respondent No. 2 had endorsed the pronote in favour of the appellant on 2nd February, 1971 at Jagadhri after receiving valuable consideration and authorising the appellant to recover the amount due on the pronote from defendant respondent No. 1. Appellant served a notice on Jagpal Singh respondent No. 1 asking to make the payment of the amount due but he refused to do so. Gurbachan Singh defendant No. 2 supported the plaintiff's case and in fact stepped into the witness box as P.W.4 accepting the endorsement Ex. P3 made by him on the pronote Ex. P1 and the receipt of consideration in lieu thereof.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 contested the suit. Execution of the pronote and receipt in dispute were admitted by him but lie denied that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 7000/- from defendant No. 2 Gurbachan Singh. Plea taken was that he and his brother had agreed to sell some land to grandfather of the plaintiff and executed the promote and receipt in dispute simply to add fictitiously to the sale consideration in order to ward off the possible pre-emptors. Further averment was that the pronote was got executed from him in the name of defendant No. 2 Gurbachan Singh and the same was without any consideration. It was alleged that though the agreement to sell had fallen through but the plaintiff insisted that the amount of the pronote be paid to his grand-father as damages. It was alleged that father of the plaintiff had ultimately transferred his tractor in favour of grand father of the plaintiff and thus no dispute remains pending between the parties thereafter. The pronote Ex. P/1 inspite of repeated demands was not returned to the defendant-respondent. The endorsement Ex. P/3 made by Gurbachan Singh defendant No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff was alleged to be forged and bogus and even if any such endorsement was proved then the same should be deemed to have been made without any consideration and was void and that plaintiff had no locus standi to sue on the basis of the pronote in dispute. It was further alleged that the Courts at Jagadhri had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute as the promote was executed in district Karnal and the defendants also reside in Karnal.