The High Court upheld the trial court's decree for money recovery, dismissin the first appeal. The court found the appellant failed to prove the pronote and receipt were blank; plaintiff positively proved loan executed with consideration.
Impugned judgment and decree upheld; 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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 113/1992
Kodu Mal S/o Laxman Das, by caste Sindhi, R/o Purani Sabji Mandi, Gangapur City, district Sawai Madhopur.
---- Defendant- Appellant
Versus
Radhey Shyam Bansal S/o Chanda Lal, by caste Vaishya R/o Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur
---- Plaintiff- Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma For Respondent(s) : None
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 19/07/2022 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : July 21st, 2022
BY THE COURT:
dated 2-4-1992 passed by the Additional District Judge Gangapur City, in Suit No.40/1989, whereby and whereunder the suit was decreed for recovery of Rs.12,345/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the suit.
from plaintiff to repay the same with interest @ 1% per month. For this loan
(2 of 6)
[CFA-113/1992]
the defendant executed a pronote written by Girdhari Lal and a receipt was
also executed written by Girdhari Lal. For recovery of amount notice was
also sent to defendant on 25-4-1988, but to no avail. As per plaint
Rs.9111/- were principle and Rs.3234/- for interest Rs.10/- for notice expenses, thus Rs.12,355/- were claimed to be recovered.
receive any amount from plaintiff. It was alleged that in collusion with Girdhari Lal, the plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of fake documents. He stated that he is illiterate person and engaged in business of shoes etc. he
further stated that his child and plaintiff’s child were engaged in transport
business and defendant’s material used to come from transport of plaintiff. Since there was dispute between their children, the defendant stopped to bring his material from the plaintiff’s transportation company due to which on 2-8-1987 plaintiff, his son Hari Mohan along with some miscreants
came to godown of defendant and obtained signatures of defendant and his
son Prem chand on some blank papaers. The matter was reported to police,
case was proceeded and on intervention of local MLA Harish Palliwal the
matter was compromised and plaintiff assured not to use blank papers got
signed from defendant and his son. But just to harass and victimise the defendant, the suit was filed. It was further stated that plaintiff’s son Hari
(3 of 6)
[CFA-113/1992]
Mohan also filed a suit for recovery of Rs.9,000/- on the basis of fake
pronote. Thus prayed for dismissal of the suit.
First, whether signatures of defendant were obtained on unfilled disputed receipt and pronote, as claimed by defendant in para 7 of written statement and the pronote is without consideration? Second, Relief?
parties. Since the burden of proof of issue No.1 was on defendant, he led his evidence and got examined himself as Dw.1, Murli as Dw.2 and Premchand
as Dw.3, but did not file any document.
In rebuttal, plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1, witness of pronote and
receipt Madan Lal as Pw.2 and the scriber Girdhari Pw.3, as also tendered documents including Pronote and Receipt in evidence as Ex.1 and Ex.2.
the issue No.1 against defendant and since execution of pronote and receipts was found proved by the plaintiff’s evidence, the suit for recovery was
decreed vide judgment dated 2-4-1992.
first appeal has been filed.
(4 of 6)
[CFA-113/1992]
judgment and decree as also other material available on record.
and receipt Ex.1 and 2. The defendant has taken a defence that his signatures were obtained on unfilled and blank pronote and receipt and that no amount was lended to him. On the basis of such defence, the issue No.1 was framed, burden of which lies upon defendant. As per statement of defendant Dw.1 his witnesses Dw.2 and Dw.3, there is contradiction with the defence put forth in written statement. In written statement, the defendant alleged that signatures of his son and defendant himself were obtained, whereas in statement Dw.1 stated that signatures of his son were not obtained. There is ambiguity in statements of defendant about the place of obtaining signatures on pronote and receipt, as in written statement there
is no reference that signatures were obtained at godown and shop, which seems to be improvisation in evidence of defendant. There is no cogent and convincing evidence of defendant and his witnesses to believe that signatures were obtained on unfilled and blank pronote and receipt. There is no evidence on record that the defendant made any complaint or FIR in this
regard, although he has alleged so in written statement.
(5 of 6)
[CFA-113/1992]
In rebuttal, plaintiff has categorically stated that pronote and receipt
Ex.1 and Ex.2 were executed by defendant after receiving amount Rs.9111/-
on credit with interest 1% per month. Statements of plaintiff have been corroborated by evidence of Pw.2 and Pw.3, who are scriber and witness of both documents Ex.1 and Ex.2, they stated that payment was made in cash in their presence and thereafter defendant executed pronote and receipt and
put his signatures on stamps affexed on pronote and receipt.
and blank papers. On the contrary, the plaintiff has produced positive evidence to prove that documents were executed in presence of his witnesses and after receiving loan amount on filled documents the defendant put his signatures on pronote and receipt on stamps affixed. A perusal of documents Ex.1 and Ex.2 does not prima facie give any impression that signatures were
made by defendant on unfilled and blank documents.
prove the issue No.1 and this court does not find any perversity or infirmity
in the findings recorded by the trial court. The same are found well within
jurisdiction and parameters of law, which do not suffer from any perversity.
(6 of 6)
[CFA-113/1992]
As far as rate of interest is concerned, the same is indicated in document and
is agreed rate of interest.
passed by the trial court requires no interference by this court and the same
deserves to be upheld and is upheld. There is no force in the first appeal filed
by plaintiff and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Decree be framed accordingly.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Arn/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant has proved that the defendant's signatures on the pronote and receipt were obtained on unfilled and blank papers without consideration?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kodu Mal S/o Laxman Das
Radhey Shyam Bansal S/o Chanda Lal
Sudes Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
