HARBANS KAUR Vs. MANNA SINGH LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18. 11. 1978. The trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 26,000.00 to be paid to the plaintiff-respondent. Brief facts of the case are that respondent (hereinafter to be referred as the plaintiff) filed a suit against the appellant (hereinafter to be referred as the defendant) for recovery of Rs. 26,000.00 on the basis of three hundies of Rs. 10,000.00 , Rs. 10,000.00 and Rs. 6000.00 respectively. It is stated in the hundies that the agreed amount shall be paid within 30 days. Over and above these hundies, an agreement was also arrived at between the parties on the same date i. e. 25. 3. 1974 whereby the defendant promised to give Rs. 26,000.00 to the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff was contested on number of grounds. It was, inter-alia, pleaded by the defendant that she did not execute any Hundi in favour of the plaintiff and that no amount was given by the plaintiff to her. It was also pleaded that the hundies were without consideration. It was further pleaded that defendant Manna Singh was the brother of one Inder Singh who was her late husband. Inder Singh died issueless leaving behind only the defendant as his widow. Inder Singh left behind certain landed property situated in village Gill Varaich and cash worth Rs. 100,000.00 in the bank. It was the defendant who was entitled to get the property according to Hindu Succession Act, but the plaintiff to deprive the defendant from the said property dragged her into litigation on the plea that she was not widow of Inder Singh. The plaintiff also contested the petition filed by the defendant for obtaining a succession certificate. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was in a position to dominate his position and induced the defendant to thumb mark some blank papers on the pretext that the mutation of the land would be sanctioned in her favour. It was further pleaded by the defendant that she is a perda nasin lady and illiterate, she, however, believed the defendant to get the property of her husband. The plaintiff fabricated the hundies and agreement. The plea of undue influence was also taken. It was further pleaded by the defendant that the hundies and agreement were without consideration as the object of such documents was illegal and forbidden by law, and therefore, suit deserves to be dismissed.

(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court on 27. 7. 1977:

(3.) MR . A. C. Jain, learned counsel for the defendant vehemently contends that no consideration at all passed to the plaintiff in lieu of Hundies Exhibits P1, P3 and agreement Exhibit-P4 and even though, therefore, the execution of the Hundies Exhibits P1 to P3 and agreement Exhibit-P4 be held proved, yet the suit for recovery could not possibly be decreed. Alternative contentions of the counsel is that the Hundies and agreement Exhibits P-1 to P-3 and P4 respectively are not binding on defendant in view of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and, therefore, also the suit for recovery could not be decreed.