KAILASH CHAND Vs. M/S MANGALIAWALA TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant Kailash Chand, having lost in both the courts below, has approached this Court by way of instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff M/s Mangaliawala Traders, through its Proprietor Subhash Chand, filed suit against defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs.5,10,000/- alleging that the plaintiff is Commission Agent and the defendant is agriculturist. The defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/- on 28.01.2004, Rs.40,000/- on 30.01.2004, Rs.60,000/- on 02.02.2004, Rs.50,000/- on 03.02.2004, Rs.45,000/- on 05.02.2004 and Rs.55,000/- on 09.02.2004 i.e. total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and signed entries in account books of the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to repay the same with interest @ 2% per mensum, but failed to repay the loan amount and interest nor sold his agricultural produce thereafter at the shop of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs.2,10,000/- as interest thereon till filing of the suit.

(2.) The defendant admitted that he was selling agricultural produce at the shop of the plaintiff, but denied having borrowed the disputed amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant, however, pleaded that farmers borrow some amounts from Commission Agents for fertilizers, pesticides and other necessities at the time of sowing crops and after crop time and the Commission Agents obtain signatures or thumb impressions of the farmers in account books or on blank papers, but the accounts are cleared at the time of sale of agricultural produce. The defendant alleged that he cleared all the amounts of the plaintiff, which were taken at any stage and nothing is due against him. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.2010, decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along interest thereon @ 8% per annum from the dates of borrowing till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Sirsa, vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.2011 except regarding modification of rate of interest, which was reduced to 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till recovery, although maintained @ 8% per annum from the last date of loan i.e. 09.02.2004 till filing of suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.