SEWA RAM Vs. GHANSHYAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Chittorgarh dated February 2, 1989 by which he decreed the suit against the defendant-appellant for the recovery of Rs. 13,153/-.

(2.) The facts of the case in that suit may be summarised thus : On July 4, 1983, the plaintiff-respondent filed suit for the recovery of Rs. 13,153/- against the defendant-appellant with the allegation in short that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,500/- on June 20,1980 with the stipulation to pay interest @ Rs. 1.50 per month and executed a pronote and receipt in his favour, he has not paid a single pie despite several demands and registered notice. The defendant-appellant filed the written statement traversing all the allegations of the plaint. He has further averred in his written statement that he is an agriculturist, his only source of income is agriculture, the plaintiff is a money lender, he has not obtained a license to deal in the money lending and as such the suit deserves to be dismissed with costs. The trial Court framed four issues. The plaintiff examined himself, Prakash Chandra, PW. 2 who is son of attesting witness Nathulal, Scribe Devilal, P.W.4, Dhuli Ram, P.W. 3, Mangilal, P.W. 5, Mohanlal, P.W. 6 and Banshilal, P.W. 7 and produced the original pronote Ex. 1, Receipt Ex. 2 copy of notice for demand Ex. 3 and acknowledgment due Ex. 4. The defendant examined himself as D.W. 1 and Alladin, D.W. 2 and produced 9 documents to prove that he is an agriculturist. After hearing the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit as such.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant that it is not proved that the pronote Ex. 1 and receipt Ex. 2 were executed for cash consideration. Plaintiff's witness Scribe Devilal P.W. 4 has stated on oath that no consideration passed before him when he scribed pronote Ex. 1 and receipt Ex. 2. It has further been conceded that after holding that the defendant-appellant was not a marginal farmer, it was not necessary for the trial Court to record that the defendant-appellant was not an agriculturist.