ABDUL MAJID Vs. SUDESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal filed against the judgment passed by District Judge, Poonch. It appears that after having framed number of issues when the document Iqrarnama, dated 27-12-1978 was being proved, an objection was raised on behalf of the defendant regarding its nature and consequently same being inadmissible in evidence. As per the defendant, the document was in fact a promissory note and not Iqrarnama and because, it was inadequately stamped as such, under Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act, it was not admissible in evidence and could not be taken on record. It was held to be a promissory note, which was inadequately stamped was not taken on record, as it could not be impounded on payment of penalty as well as the requisite stamp.

(2.) It is in the aforesaid background that the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed. In order to further understand the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is appropriate to notice few material facts relevant for determination of this appeal.

(3.) A suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 30,000/- on the basis of agreement dated 27-12-1978 and acknowledgement dated 29-9-1980. According to plaintiff, both the documents were executed by the defendant. Further case of the plaintiff was that initially a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was obtained as loan by the defendant and Iqrarnama was executed on 27-12-1978 by him, wherein amongst other things, he had agreed to repay this amount on or before 27-12-1979. It also contained several other stipulations which are not relevant for the determination of this appeal. Since, the defendant failed to pay the amount, he executed an acknowledgement, wherein he undertook to repay the amount within two years thereof, failing which defendant further undertook to pay the amount initially raised by him with 50% more. It is in these premises and on the failure of the defendant to repay the amount after the expiry of two years from 29th Sept. 1980 that suit came to be filed. In his written statement, that defendant disputed his liability to repay this amount as also having received the same, in addition to the fact that the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected, because he was debtor within the meaning of Distress Debtors Relief Act. In paras 1 and 3 of the written statement while admitting his signatures on both the documents, defendant pleaded that those were obtained by mis-representation as well as under threat on the first occasion and under coercion and threat on the second. In this background, dismissal of suit was prayed for. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff.