HANS RAJ Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment, I am disposing of two appeals bearing R. S. A. No. 708 of 1985 and R. S. A. No. 709 of 1985, as the fact and points of law involved in both these cases are identical.

(2.) IN R. S. A. No. 708 of 1985, appellant Hans Raj is alleged to have taken a loan of Rs. 65,500/from Surjit Inder Singh (whose L. Rs. are the respondents in this case) after executing two pronotes for sums of Rs. 55,000/- and Rs. 10,500/- and also executing two receipts for the same amounts. In R. S. A. No. 709 of 1985, appellant Risala is alleged to have taken the same amount against pronote of this judgment, the facts of R. S. A. No. 708 of 1985 are being taken. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one of the L. Rs. of Surjit Inder Singh filed a suit against the appellant Hans Raj for the recovery of Rs. 85,500/- on the basis of two pronotes and their consequent receipts dated 4th September, 1968 and 5th September, 1968, allegedly executed by the appellant in favour of said Surjit Inder Singh. Since Surjit Inderjit Singh had died, his son filed the said suit seeking a decree in his, favour and in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 5, who were also L. Rs. of late Surjit Inder Singh. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree, dated 31st July, 1982 decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 85,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 5 against Hans Raj defendant (appellant herein) with costs and with interest to be calculated at the rate of 1% per month from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of the decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned trial Court the defendant Hans Raj filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jind, vide his judgment, dated 20th October, 1984. The present appeal has been filed against the above mentioned judgment, dated 31st July, 1982 passed by the learned trial Court and the judgment dated 20th October, 1984, passed by the learned first appellate Court.

(3.) ON merits of the case, the learned counsel submitted that the execution and the consideration of the pronotes Exhibits P-1 to P-7 were not proved on the record. He submitted that as per averments made in the plaint, the consideration was paid by Surjit Inder Singh and the same is the recital in Exhibits P-1 to P-4, but evidence on, record was to the contrary. In this connection, he referred to the statement of P. W. 2 Madan Gopal who had stated, that perhaps Surjit Inder Singh was not present at the time of payment of the consideration. Similarly, PW 3 Pannu Ram, the attesting witness of Exhibits P3 and P4, had stated that Surjit Inder Singh was not present. PW 5 Badlu, in his statement, had stated that the payment of both loans was made in the village through Jagdish Narain. He further submitted that Jagdish Narain was not produced as a witness.