SARDARA SINGH Vs. SHAMSHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court on 24.10.1991 and affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court on 12.02.1992 whereby suit for recovery of Rs. 9990/ - on the basis of pro -note and receipt dated 06.06.1988 was decreed. The plaintiff claimed that defendant raised a loan of Rs. 8600/ - on 06.06.1988 and executed a receipt and a pro -note with a stipulation that he will return the said amount along with interest at the rate of 2% per month. In the written statement, the stand of the defendant was that of denial of the execution of pro -note and receipt and that the plaintiff was alleged to be a money lender.

(2.) THE plaintiff himself appeared as PW -1 before the learned trial Court and has examined Major Singh as PW -2, the scribe of pronote Ex. P1 and receipt Ex. P2, Sohan Lal as PW -3, the attesting witness of receipt Ex. P2. The Plaintiff deposed in respect of execution of pronote by the defendant in the presence of the witnesses. In cross -examination, the plaintiff denied that the defendant was in jail from 30.04.1988 to 09.06.1988 and also denied the suggestion that signatures of the defendant on the said documents were obtained from the defendant while he was in jail. He denied the suggestion that signatures of the defendant are forged signatures. PW -2 Major Singh deposed that he scribed the pronote Ex. P1 and receipt Ex. P2 and that the defendant signed the same after the same was read over to him and admitted the content of the same to be correct. In cross -examination, he stated that he has written pronote and receipt on 10.06.1988 but put the date as 06.06.1988 at the instance of the defendant. PW 3 Sohan Lal has attested the pronote Ex P1 and receipt Ex. P2 and deposed that the defendant has signed on the pronote and receipt in his presence.

(3.) THE learned trial Court examined the entire evidence and found that the defendant has not led any evidence that signatures on pronote and receipt are not his signatures. It was incumbent upon the defendant to get his specimen signatures compared with disputed signatures. The Court found that even the suggestion given to the witnesses of the plaintiff that signatures of the defendant were obtained in jail amounts to proof of the signatures of the defendant on pronote Ex. P1 and receipt Ex. P2. Apart from the said inferences, the learned trial Court relied upon the oral evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses to return a finding that the defendant has executed pronote and receipt after receiving the amount and has not paid any amount to the plaintiff. The Court raised presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the defendant. In view of the said finding, the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 9900/ - along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% from the date of decree till the date of realization. The appeal against the said judgment was dismissed inter alia by the learned first Appellate Court for the reason that defendant has not made any effort to get his admitted signatures compared with the disputed signatures and that defendant himself admitted in the cross -examination that decree for a sum of more than Rs. 2 lakhs has already been passed against him by the learned trial Court and he has taken loans from 2 -3 other persons on the basis of pronotes and receipts.