The High Court dismissed the appellant-defendant's second appeal. Upholding the lower appellate court's findings, it held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving illiteracy despite bearing signatures on loan documents, leading to the conclusion that the custom to sign was valid.
The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Regular Second Appeal No. 1017 of 2009 (O & M )
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: February 22, 2011.
Regular Second Appeal No. 1017 of 2009 (O & M )
Baldev Singh ….Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar
..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
Present: Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the respondent.
-.-
MOHINDER PAL, J.
Baldev Singh (appellant-defendant) is in second appeal
aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court whereby judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and suit of the plaintiff-respondent to the extent of recovery of Rs.60,000/- along with interest at the rate of six per
Regular Second Appeal No. 1017 of 2009 (O & M )
cent per annum from the date of lending till realization was decreed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
The defendant-appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/from the plaintiff-respondent on 15.5.2002 at the rate of two per cent per month interest. A pronote and a receipt were executed by the defendant-appellant in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in this regard. The defendant had signed both these documents in the presence of the attesting witnesses. When the defendant failed to repay the loan amount, the plaintiff instituted the instant suit.
In the written statement, the defendant denied having executed any pronote or receipt in favour of the plaintiff; that he (defendant) being agriculturalist used to sell his crops at the shop of the plaintiff and his father, who were commission agents; that huge amount of the defendant was outstanding towards the plaintiff and his father; and that the defendant was an illiterate man who did not know how to sign.
The trial Court, after framing issues on the pleadings of the parties, recording evidence led by the parties and hearing their learned counsel dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 16.2.2008. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent went in appeal before the lower appellate Court, which decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the extent indicated in the opening para of this judgment vide judgment and decree dated 11.9.2008. The defendant-appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court.
Regular Second Appeal No. 1017 of 2009 (O & M )
As noticed above, the defendant took the plea in the written statement that he was an illiterate person and did not know how to sign. However, the pronote (Exhibit P.1) and receipt (Exhibit P.2) bear the signatures of the defendant. Pawan Kumar (P.W.2) and Narain Dass (P.W.3) are the attesting witnesses of the pronote and the receipt. Narain Dass (P.W.3) had also scribed these documents. Both these witnesses have categorically stated that the plaintiffrespondent had paid Rs.60,000/- to the defendant-appellant in their presence and then pronote and the receipt were executed. They further stated that the defendant-appellant had signed these documents in their presence. Under these circumstances, the onus to prove that the defendant did not know how to sign or write was on him (defendant), which he failed to discharge. The defendant did not lead any oral or documentary evidence to prove that he did not know how to sign. There is nothing on record except the bald statement of defendant Baldev Singh (D.W.1) to prove that he was an illiterate man. Had the defendant not signed the pronote and receipt, he would not have failed to report the matter to the police after coming to know that false documents had been got prepared by plaintiff Vinod Kumar (P.W.1) in connivance with Pawan Kumar (P.W.2) and Narain Dass (P.W.3). No report was ever made by the defendant to the police. Nor the defendant lodged any private complaint against the plaintiff, Pawan Kumar and Narain Dass in the Court of competent jurisdiction. Non-action of the defendant in this regard leads to the only conclusion that he had signed the pronote (Exhibit P.1) and receipt (Exhibit P.2) after having received the amount of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff as loan. The lower appellate Court, under these circumstances, was quite right in holding that both these documents were genuine documents.
Regular Second Appeal No. 1017 of 2009 (O & M )
No fault, therefore, can be found with this finding of the lower appellate Court keeping in view the facts discussed above. No question of law arises in this appeal for the consideration of this Court.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Dated: February 22, 2011. ( MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate court erred in admitting the loan documents despite the appellant's claim of illiteracy.
Whether sufficient evidence was led to establish that the appellant did not know how to sign the pronote and receipt.
Baldev Singh
Vinod Kumar
MOHINDER PAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
