PREM SAGAR Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this Regular Second Appeal is that the plaintiff (respondent herein) ought to have examined the handwriting expert to prove his case and further that only suit for specific performance would lie as per the terms contained in the alleged agreement between the parties. Basing his argument on these submissions, the learned counsel has impugned the judgments of the court below.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,71,875/- against the defendant. It was stated that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-, executed a pronote dated 11.7.1989 and acknowledged the receipt of the said amount. Interest at the rate of 1.80 per cent per month was payable. It was further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had also executed an agreement that in the event of default of payment he would have no objection to the sale of land measuring 4 Bighas 1 Biswas in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant. The learned trial Court framed as many as five issues. The onus of issue No. 2 which related to forgery and fabrication of the pronote and the receipt was placed upon the defendant. While answering all the issues against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff the trial Court decreed the suit for principal relief of recovery of money vide its judgment and decree dated 10th February, 1995. This was assailed unsuccessfully in appeal by the defendant and the learned first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 17th December, 1997 dismissed the appeal with costs.