ABDUL REHMAN Vs. RAMESHWAR DAYAL PRASADI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal by defendant Abdul Rehman is directed against the judgement and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge, Sirohi, whereby suit of respondent firm Rameshwar Dayal Prasadi Lal, a registered partner-ship firm, has been decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,22,096/- with interest vide judgement dated 27. 5. 1978. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff- respondent is that it is a registered partnership firm carrying on business in the name and style of Rameshwar Dayal Prasadi Lal at Abu Road. Abdul Rehman had money dealings with the plaintiff- firm and the account of Abdul Rehman with the firm was settled on 20. 7. 1974 and a sum of Rs. 1,07,101/- was found due. Abdul Rehman stipulated to repay amount with interest at the rate of 1% per month and executed a promissory note in this regard. The plaintiff firm demanded the amount a number of times but no payment was made and eventually written notice was served on Abdul Rehman on 6. 5. 75 but he did not accept the notice. Upon such averments the plaintiff-firm claimed recovery of Rs. 1,07. 101/ -. on account of principal, Rs. 14,933/- on account of interest and Rs. 21- on account of notice expenses. It prayed for costs. The defendant contested the suit traversing the averments of the plaintiff- firm. It was, denied that Abdul Rehman had executed any promissory-note in favour of the plaintiff firm. It was denied that any settlement of accounts had taken place prior to the alleged execution of the promissory note. It was pleaded that the promissory note was without consideration. A plea was taken that the stamps bearing the signatures of the defendant on the promissory- note were removed from some other document and were affixed to the disputed promissory note and thus the promissory note was forged. Certain other objections were also raised with which I am not concerned in this appeal. The learned trial Judge framed necessary issues and recorded evidence of the parties. In the oral evidence, plaintiff-firm examined P. W. 1 Ambalal and P. W. 2 Samrathmal. In documentary evidence, the promissory-note in question as also certain other Khata entries and promissory note Ex. 2 were filed. The defendant did not file any documentary evidence to examine himself in rebuttal.

(2.) THE learned trial Judge after consideration of the evidence on record held that the plaintiff-firm was a duly registered partnership firm and Rameshwar Dayal Prasadi Lal who had signed plaint was a partner and was authorised to file the suit. It held that there were previous dealings between the parties, accounts were settled and the defendant executed the promissory note which was for consideration. It repelled the contention of the defendant that stamps containing signatures of dependant had been removed from some other document and had been affixed on the suit promissory note. Upon such findings, the learned trial Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit as stated earlier. Aggrieved, defendant Abdul Rehman has come in appeal.

(3.) NOW, I may consider whether the finding of the learned trial court that Abdul Rehman had executed a promissory note after settlement of accounts is correct or not. I have gone through the evidence adduced before the learned trial Judge and have critically examined the same Amba Lal who was partner in the plaintiff-firm, in his sworn testimony has deposed that his firm had some money dealings with Abdul Rehman for last 25 or 30 years and the accounts were explained to Abdul Rehman by the 'munim' of the firm and the 'munim' of the firm had scribed promissory note Ex. 1 and Abdul Rehman had affixed stamps on the promissory note and had signed the same. Khata entries were produced by Amba Lal in support of his statement that there were previous dealings between the parties and various sums of rupees had been advanced to Abdul Rehman on different dates, e. g. , a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was advanced on 5. 6. 1974, a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was advanced on 8. 6. 1974, and so on and so forth. It was specifically stated by Amba Lal that all the previous transactions were totalled and this promissory note Ex. 1 was executed. It has been stated by Amba Lal that the promissory note was scribed by 'munim' Samrath Mal. Nothing has come in his cross-examination which may go to discredit him on this aspect of the matter. Samrath Mal is the person who had scribed the promissory note Ex. P. 1. He has specifically stated that he had scribed' the promissory-note at the instance of Abdul Rehman and Abdul Rehman had read over the same and had affixed his signatures. In his cross-examination Samrath Mal has clarified that Abdul Rehman had earlier borrowed certain amounts and account was settled and after adding interest, promissory-note had been executed. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness which may discredit his evidence. The learned trial Judge had critically evaluated the evidence of both these witnesses for the reasons given by him, I am in entire agreement with him that plaintiff succeeded in establishing that there were previous dealings between the parties and accounts were settled* and Abdul Rehman had executed promissory note in question. I may add that Samrath Mal remained 'munim' with the plaintiff-firm for the period 1972 to 1975. On the day his statement was recorded by the learned trial court, he was no longer munim with the plaintiff-firm. He had, therefore, no subsisting interest in the plaintiffi-firm and there is no reason why he will tell a lie to help plaintiff-firm in any manner.