MOLAR SINGH Vs. DIN DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25th may, 1962 of Sub-Judge Ist Class, Gurgaon, dismissing his suit for the recovery of rs. 6,720/- as principal and interest on the basis of a pronote dated 7-4-1960 on the finding that the execution of the document and the passing of the consideration had not been proved.

(2.) SHRI Bakhtawar Lal defendant, who died during the trial, was described by the plaintiff to have incurred this loan as a Manager of Karta of the Joint Hindu Family comprising of himself and his two sons Din Dayal and Kesho Dayal, defendant-respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The blanks in the printed forms used for the execution of the pronote marked 'y' and receipt marked 'x' have admittedly been filled in the hand of Shri Din Dayal defendant-respondent. The case of the defendants, however, was that they did not comprise any Joint Hindu Family and that no debt had in fact been advanced to them by the plaintiff. Bakhtawar Lal and Din Dayal had denied that these documents bore their signatures. Din Dayal's explanation was that in his father's absence he had filled in the blanks on the appellant's assurance that his father had asked for the loan and he would be advanced the money some days later. Din Dayal had, therefore, declined to sign these documents even as a scribe saying that he would do so after his father had been advanced the promised loan. Bakhtawar Lal deceased was admittedly a person with very weak eye-sight even if he cannot be described as almost blind. The process Server, who had served the summons of this case on Bakhtawar Lal, had been examined as the appellant's witness to prove the signatures of the deceased on the summons. He stated during his cross-examination that the deceased had very weak eye-sight and had appended his signatures more or less blindly or by approximation (andaza ).

(3.) THE defendants had taken a number of preliminary or technical objections which had given rise to issues Nos. 4 to 7. Shri Goyal, the learned Counsel for the defendant-respondents, does not press these issues in this Court. The first three issues which relate to the execution of the pronote, passing of the consideration and the rate of interest are material for a decision of this appeal. The liability of kesho Dayal, defendant-respondent No. 3 would depend on how far the appellant can prove that Shri Bakhtawar Lal incurred the loan as Manager or Karta of a joint hindu Family.