MAST RAM Vs. PARAS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-appellant filed the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen for recovery of Rs. 2700/- (Rs. 2000/- as principal amount and Rs. 700/-, as interest) against the defendant-respondent along with interest at the rate of 1% per annum.

(2.) According to the allegations in plaint, defendant borrowed Rs. 2000/- on 16.9.1971 at village Takarla from the plaintiff and executed a pronote along with its receipt which was duly thumb-marked by the defendant. Defendant failed to pay the amount in spite of repeated demands and hence the present suit was filed.

(3.) Defendant contested the suit. He took a preliminary objection that plaintiff was a moneylender and he had not obtained the licence for money- landing and, therefore, he was not entitled to the decree prayed for. On merits, defendant denied having executed the pronote or borrowed any amount. It was alleged that defendant was an illiterate man and he executed the pronote for Rs. 1000/- out of which Rs. 950/- were paid to him. The plaintiff was a clever money-lender and he in collusion with the scribe had got entered Rs. 2000/- on the pronote and got thumb impression of the defendant. The pronote is false and forged document. No witness was present at the time of execution of the pronote and receipt. There was no attestation of the pronote and if the same has been attested, the same must have been got done afterwards. The other allegations were also denied.