KIRPAL SINGH Vs. NARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of learned District Courts; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for recovery of Rs.9,92,835.00 on the basis of Pronote and Receipt dtd. 18/9/2007, has been decreed by both District Courts.

(2.) It was pleaded in the plaint that on 18/9/2007 defendant/appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.8,53,000.00 from Khem Singh, father of the plaintiff. It was averred that appellant had executed Pronote and Receipt dtd. 18/9/2007 against the said loan amount. Appellant had also agreed to pay interest of 2% per month. However, Khem Singh, father of the plaintiff had died on 3/9/2008. During his lifetime, Khem Singh had executed a Will dtd. 12/7/2008 on the strength of which, plaintiff was entitled to recovery of the said amount. It was alleged that plaintiff had visited defendant number of times with a request to repay the amount but to no avail. Accordingly, present suit was filed on 12/2/2009.

(3.) Upon notice, defendant had appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement; wherein it was admitted that the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.8,50,000.00 from Khem Singh. Defendant also admitted that Pronote and Receipt dtd. 18/9/2007 were executed by him in favour of Khem Singh. However, it was denied that the loan was still outstanding. It was stated that sum of Rs.8,50,000.00 was duly repaid by the defendant to Khem Singh on 8/4/2008 in respect of which Writing dtd. 8/4/2008 was executed by Khem Singh in the presence of the witnesses. It was pointed out in the written statement that in the Writing dtd. 8/4/2008, Khem Singh had duly mentioned that original Pronote and Receipt were lost and in case original was found, no case would be filed against the defendant as the amount already stood repaid. It was contended that therefore, question of demanding amount by the plaintiff, does not arise. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.