INDRAWATI Vs. BADAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 12.03.2011. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was dismissed on 27.08.2013. This is how, defendant is before this court, in this regular second appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) IN a suit filed by the plaintiff, he prayed for recovery of Rs. 3,69,635/ -, as principal amount, and Rs. 1,29,365/ -, as interest thereon. It was averred that plaintiff and defendant were on visiting terms for the last many years. She borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,69,635/ - at Jhajjar from the plaintiff for education of her children and other domestic purposes on 12.10.2001. And in token of the loan amount, defendant executed a pronote and receipt, that were duly thumb marked in the presence of the plaintiff and attesting witnesses. It was agreed that the amount lent would bear an interest @ 1% per month. Since, defendant failed to repay the loan amount, thus, the suit.

(3.) TRIAL court, on a consideration of the matter in issue and evidence on record, found that plaintiff and defendant were well known to each other. To prove his claim, plaintiff brought on record a pronote (Ex. P1) and receipt (Ex. P2) duly attested by Dharam Singh Yadav and Daya Kishan. It was observed that concededly one of the attesting witnesses, namely, Dharam Singh has since passed away. Plaintiff (PW 1) stepped into the witness box and proved his claim. Likewise, Badan Singh, an attesting witness of the pronote and receipt, testified the due and valid execution of the said documents. To prove that the documents in question bear the signatures of the defendant, plaintiff examined an Handwriting Expert, namely, V.B. Kashyap (PW 3), who testified in his statement that the pronote and receipt bear the thumb impressions of defendant Smt. Inderawati. It was observed that neither the defendant produced any substantive evidence to falsify the claim of the plaintiff nor examined any Expert in rebuttal to show that the pronote and receipt (Ex. P1 & Ex. P2) did not bear her thumb impressions. Though, she simply denied to have availed a loan from the plaintiff in her written statement, however, when she appeared in the witness box as DW 4, in her affidavit Ex. DW 4/A, she testified that despite request of the defendant and her son Om Parkash, plaintiff did not settle the amount and even a Panchayat had assembled in the village in this regard, but the plaintiff refused to settle the amount. Accordingly, it was observed that testimony of DW 4 revealed that indeed there was something between the plaintiff and the defendant, that was to be settled. However, this fact was never pleaded by the defendant in her written statement. Though, Suresh Kumar (DW 1) testified that on the date of alleged payment i.e. 12.10.2001, plaintiff did not have sufficient amount in his bank account (PNB), was wholly immaterial, as it was not proved that the plaintiff had only a single account in PNB. Particularly, when this was not the case of the plaintiff that he had brought the amount from the said bank account. Accordingly, the suit was decreed.