Allahabad High Court
Jile Singh vs Bhopal Singh on 21 January, 2010
Author: Rakesh Sharma
Bench: Rakesh Sharma
Court No. - 1 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 1370 of 1977 Petitioner :- Jile Singh Respondent :- Bhopal Singh Petitioner Counsel :- G.N.Verma Respondent Counsel :- Santosh Kumar Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma,J.
Heard Shri Ajay Kumar holding brief of Shri G.N.Vema, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Through this second appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court on 4.3.1977 in Civil Appeal No.106 of 1975 reversing the findings and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court in a suit seeking recovery of Rs.2040/- on the basis of pronote. One Jile Singh had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2040/- on the basis of promissory note and receipts alleged to have been executed by the defendant Bhopal Singh in favour of the plaintiff on 10.10.1969 for a sum of Rs.1500/-. The defendant-respondent agreed to pay interest @ Rs.1% per month, but in spite of repeated demands he failed to repay the loan nor he had paid interest thereupon.
The defendant-respondent contested the suit and denied the consideration of pronote. He further alleged that the plaintiff-appellant had obtained his signature with a view to keep pressure upon him. However, he had admitted his signatures on the blank form of pronote and receipt. Three issues were framed by the Trial Court, which were answered against the borrower. The opinion of the handwriting expert was obtained. The expert after going through the contents of the pronote receipt etc. recorded that Bhopal Singh had taken loan of Rs.1500/- from the plaintiff-appellant. The promissory notes and receipts were signed by him after receiving Rs.1500/- from him. In the cross-examination nothing had come forward which might challenge the testimony of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had proved the execution of pronote and the receipts, which were exhibited as 4-5 in the Trial Court's record. Since the court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence had held that the plaintiff had advanced Rs.1500/- on 10.10.1969 and the defendant executed the pronote and receipts. He was liable to pay the amount along with the interest as agreed between the parties. The suit for recovery of Rs.2040/- was decreed on 26.4.1975. Interestingly, in the present case the First Appellate Court had applied the principals of U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976. As per the learned counsel for the appellant, this act had come into force on 20.7.1976 while the decree of the Trial Court has been passed on 26.4.1975 much before the Act came into force and the provisions of said Act could not be applied to defeat the suit of the appellant particularly when the appellant's suit has been decreed by the Trial Court. The appellant was not a money lender within the meaning of Section 36 of the said Act. There was nothing on record to show that the appellant carried out the business of money lending. It was a simple case of borrowing money from one person to another for which promissory note and receipts were issued. These documents were fully proved. A different colour has been given to the litigation by the First Appellate Court. The findings of lower Appellate Court is totally perverse. The appellant has made out a case of interference.
In view of above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 4.3.1977 passed by Additional District Judge, Ghazibad is hereby set aside.
Since the suit was filed in the year 1973 and was decided on 26.4.1975, it is expected from the Executing Court to complete the execution proceedings expeditiously. The amount shall be released from the assets of the respondent including his legal heirs, if any.
Order Date :- 21.1.2010 pks