GANGA RAM Vs. RISAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Sub-Judge 1st Class, rohtak, dated July 1, 1969 by which the objections under Section 30 of the arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were dismissed against the Award of the Arbitrator, dated May 31, 1969.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this litigation are that Risal Singh plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 14,000/- as principal and Rs. 2,000/- as interest at the rate of 1 per cent. Per mensem against Ganga Ram on the ground that he took a loan of the aforesaid amount from him (plaintiff) vide bahi entry dated Asoj Sudi dui Samvat 2023 Bk (June 15, 1966), which he had thumb marked after having admitted the contents thereof to be correct. He did not pay the amount in spite of repeated requests and therefore notice was also served on him. It is further stated by the plaintiff that he is not a money lender. Ganga Ram, who was originally the defendant (but died during the pendency of the suit) contested it and pleaded that he did not raise any loan from the plaintiff. He further pleaded that he was an illiterate person and had money dealings with the plaintiff and he after representing to him (Ganga Ram) that an amount of Rs. 1,400/- was due from him on account of earlier accounts obtained his thumb impression on a stamped blank paper stating that he will get the entry made later, as no scribe was available at that time. The relations between the plaintiff and Ganga Ram became strained subsequently as the plaintiff wanted him (Ganga Ram) to support a candidate of his (plaintiff's) choice in elections which he refused to do. The plaintiff, therefore, got the false entry prepared on the blank paper which was in his possession. He also pleaded that the plaintiff was a moneylender and he did not comply with the provisions of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act. 1938 (hereinafter referred to as the 'money Lenders Act') and the Punjab regulation of Accounts Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the 'accounts Act' ). The trial Court during the pendency of the suit, on the statement of the parties, referred the dispute to the sole arbitration of Chaudhry Maru Singh, Advocate, rohtak. He gave an award dated May 31, 1969 holding that an amount of Rs. 14,000/- was due from Ganga Ram to the plaintiff. As Ganga Ram died during pendency of the suit, therefore, he held that his property was liable in the hands of his legal representatives, who had been impleaded as defendants. The plaintiff did not file any objections against the award. The defendants, however, filed objections under Section 30 of the Act. The trial Court framed the following issues:-

(3.) I therefore, accept the appeal and set aside the award of the arbitrator with no order as to costs.