RANGI RAM Vs. JARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the dismissed of his suit for the recovery of Rs. 6000/-filed against the defendant-respondent.

(2.) The suit was filed on 12.12.1978 alleging that the defendant-respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 4000/- with the promise to re-pay the same with interest but having failed to pay the same, the suit was filed. The defendant-respondent denied having taken any loan or executing any pronote or receipt. After considering the evidence, the trial Court held that the defendant-respondent had borrowed money and had failed to re-pay the same but since the pronote was insufficiently stamped, no decree could be passed. It was sought to be contended by the plaintiff-appellant that the loan transaction was independent of the pronote but the trial Court found that there was no such plea taken in the plaint. The trial Court found that there was no antecedent debt and, therefore, insufficiently stamped pronote could not be looked into. The lower appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) I do not find any reason to take a different view than the one taken by the Courts below.