SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. BAMRAH & COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for recovery against the appellants on the averments that appellant No. 1 used to sell his crop through them and was also taking loan some times. Appellant No. 2, being son of appellant No. 1, also used to take loan from the respondents on behalf of his father and used to put his signatures in the account books. It was further alleged in the plaint that appellant No. 1 through his son i.e. appellant No. 2 had borrowed a sum of Rs. 3.00 lacs on 06.11.2001 from them in cash and in lieu thereof a writing was executed in the account books in favour of the plaintiff/respondents and thereafter defendant/appellant No. 1 through his son i.e. appellant No. 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 2.90 lacs from the plaintiff/respondents on 24.04.2002 in cash and signed entries in the account books in favour of the plaintiff/respondents and promised to pay the said loan amount along with interest. After availing the said loan, the appellants neither sold their produce at the shop of the plaintiff/respondents nor did they repay anything out of the loan amount. Hence, the necessity arose to file the instant suit for recovery of Rs. 5,90,000 as principal amount and Rs. 2,92,500 on account of interest, total amounting to Rs. 8,82,500. The defendant-appellants in their written statement, raised various preliminary objections stating that suit of the plaintiff/respondents was false and frivolous as the alleged entries in the account books were forged and fabricated and have not been 1 signed by defendant/appellant No. 2. On merits, running of business of Commission Agency by the plaintiff/respondents at Badhni Kalan under the name and style of M/s. Bamrah and Company was admitted, however, it was pleaded that defendant/appellant No. 2 had no concern or dealing with the plaintiff/respondents and there was no occasion for him to obtain the said loan or to sign the account books. All other averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

(2.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 01.11.2011 decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondents.