KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. GURPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 1.2.1997 whereby the defendant's appeal was accepted and the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 34,000/ - on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 28.6.1985 in the sum of Rs. 25,000/ - was dismissed. The plaintiff, the present appellant, a licensed money lender, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 34,000/ - on the basis of said pronote alleging therein that the defendant undertook to pay interest at the rate of 2% per month and that the defendant has not paid any amount towards the principal or interest. Thus, an amount of Rs. 25,000/ - as principal and Rs. 9,000/ - as interest at the rate of 1% per month is claimed by the plaintiff as due and payable by the defendant.

(2.) IN the written statement, the defendant denied having borrowed an amount of Rs. 25,000/ - or having executed pronote and receipt for that amount. It is asserted that one Balbir Singh, tenant of the defendant, and his brother Hardial Singh used to sell their produce through commission agency of the plaintiff and used to get the amount of rent paid to him through the plaintiff. It is asserted that in April, 1977, the defendant went to the shop of the plaintiff to receive the amount of Rs. 5,000/ - on account of rent due from the aforesaid tenant Balbir Singh. The plaintiff refused to pay the amount saying that nothing was standing in the credit of Balbir Singh but since the defendant was in need, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - and the defendant affixed his signatures on the pronote and receipt. It is thus alleged that the plaintiff obtained alleged signatures on blank pronote and receipt forms on the assurance that if the requisite amount is paid to him by Balbir Singh, then he would destroy the pronote and receipt.

(3.) ON the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: