NARAINA Vs. ISWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit was filed by the respondent for the recovery of Rs. 1,600/- on the basis of a bahi entry dated June 8, 1968, bearing the signatures of the appellant. The defence set up was that the appellant had joined the plaintiff as a siri in cultivation and received Rs. 160/- in cash and 14-1/2 kilo gur and has put his thumb impression in the bahi in acknowledgment thereof. The thumb impression on the bahi entry was thus admitted by the defendant and the only dispute between the parties was regarding its consideration. The plaintiff in order to prove his case appeared as his own witness and examined his son Arjun Singh PW.1 who had scribed the entry. The defendant in rebuttal appeared as his own witness and examined two witnesses Surjit and Kehru. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence held that the passing of the consideration was not proved and dismissed the suit. However, on appeal, the learned Additional District Judge Jind, vide judgment dated July 1, 1971, reversed the finding of the trial Court which led to the filing of the second appeal by the defendant.

(2.) The finding recorded by the lower appellate Court is essentially a finding of fact but it has been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that while doing so the learned Additional District Judge has failed to take into consideration the provisions of Section 12 of the Punjab Debtors' Protections Act, 1936, which reads as under :-

(3.) The argument of the learned counsel appears to be well merited. Ordinarily the proof of the execution of the document and the statement of the creditor would not be sufficient to discharge the burden of the passing of the consideration as otherwise the provisions of Section 12 would have no meaning and the placing of the burden on creditor of no consequence. However, if the statement of the creditor is corroborated from other circumstances placed on the record the Court may accept the same for the discharge of this burden. In the present case apart from the statement of the creditor the only proof consists of the statement of his own son who is obviously a partisan and highly interested witness. Reliance, therefore, could not be reasonably placed on the statements of the plaintiff and his son to prove the passing of the consideration. That apart, the statement of the creditor stands contradicted by the statement of the appellant on oath. The story set up by the latter also does not appear to be improbable and is more convincing than that of the respondent. It is not denied that the appellant had joined the respondent as a siri and usually when a person joins as such he is given some advance to be adjusted later on after the harvesting of the crop. Consequently, the finding of the lower appellate Court on the passing of the consideration is reversed with the result that this appeal is allowed with costs, the impugned judgment and decree set aside and that of the trial Court restored.