BEG RAJ SHARMA Vs. OM PRAKASH KAUSHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil first appeal under Section 96 CPC arises out of the judgment and decree dated 5.8.1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kishangarh-bas thereby dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 16,775/-.

(2.) The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint was that he advanced loan of a sum of Rs. 11,000/- along with interest @ 5% p.m. to the defendant so as to enable him to purchase some land and the defendant in turn, executed a pronote in favour of plaintiff. In addition to pronote, the defendant also issued a receipt. Since the defendant failed to re-pay the principal sum and interest within time as assured by him, the plaintiff got served a legal notice. Despite service of notice, the defendant did not pay the principal amount and the interest. It was with these allegations that the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,000/- as principal amount and Rs. 5775.00 as interest thereon, totaling to Rs. 16775/-.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and denied the allegations. In the written statement the defendant pleaded that he did not borrow cash of Rs. 11000/- as alleged by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the plaintiff is the son-in-law of his uncle and he is residing along with his in-laws. The defendant was interested im purchase of land of his another uncle Deeg Ram. Likewise, plaintiff was also interested im purchase of some of the land. The land which the defendant intended to purchase was already in his physical possession. However, at the relevant time he was not having sufficient fund to purchase the land. In these circumstances it was agreed upon between the parties to get an agreement executed and registered according to which it was agreed that defendant would pay Rs. 11000/- to his uncle Deeg Ram as against the land and that plaintiff would be orally responsible for payment of the aforesaid sum. Accordingly, the plaintiff in his capacity as a surety obtained the signature of the defendant on a blank pronote with assurance that this pronote would be destroyed after he pays Rs. 11000/- to Deeg Ram. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 4 issues and at the conclusion of trial and on hearing the parties, at the learned Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit vide its impugned judgment and decree. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.