BHAJAN KAUR Vs. TARLOK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment/decree dated 28.9.2004 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kapurthala whereby he accepted the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 79,980/- with pendente lite interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until the decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of the decree until realisation of the amount on the principal amount with the further observations that the respondents shall also be liable to pay the decreetal amount to the extent, they have inherited the property of Dilbagh Singh, their predecessor-in- interest by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 1.4.2003 rendered by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara whereby she dismissed the suit with costs.

(2.) THE facts which form the backdrop of the suit are that Dilbagh Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants obtained a sum of Rs. 62,000/- as loan from the plaintiff on 9.11.1998 and in consideration thereof, executed the pronote and receipt of even date in his favour with the promise to repay the same on demand together with interest at the rate of Rs. 4% per mensem. The former did not repay even a single penny either towards principal or interest. He breathed his last and is survived by his legal representatives- defendants, who were requested number of times to make the payments of the above-mentioned amount together with interest, but in vain. On these allegations, this suit has been filed for the recovery of Rs. 62,000/- being principal amount along with interest amounting to Rs. 17,980/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In answer to this claim, the defendants repudiated the alleged execution of the promissory note as well as receipt of Rs. 62,000/- by Dilbagh Singh-deceased. It has been alleged that the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents and are without consideration. Traversing other facts in the plaint, it has been prayed that the suit may be dismissed with costs. The following issues were framed :-

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record as well as the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection.