Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Kumar vs Gurpal Singh on 10 October, 2014
Equivalent citations: AIR 2015 (NOC) 2 (P.&H.)
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
RSA No.1429 of 1997 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1429 of 1997 (O&M)
Date of decision:10.10.2014
Krishan Kumar ....Appellant
VERSUS
Gurpal Singh .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent.
****
HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 01.02.1997 whereby the defendant's appeal was accepted and the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs.34,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 28.06.1985 in the sum of Rs.25,000/- was dismissed.
The plaintiff, the present appellant, a licensed money lender, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.34,000/- on the basis of said pronote alleging therein that the defendant undertook to pay interest at the rate of 2% per month and that the defendant has not paid any amount towards the principal or interest. Thus, an amount of Rs.25,000/- as principal and Rs.9,000/- as interest at the rate of 1% per month is claimed by the plaintiff as due and payable by the defendant.
In the written statement, the defendant denied having borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/- or having executed pronote and GULATI DIWAKER 2014.10.14 13:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.1429 of 1997 2 receipt for that amount. It is asserted that one Balbir Singh, tenant of the defendant, and his brother Hardial Singh used to sell their produce through commission agency of the plaintiff and used to get the amount of rent paid to him through the plaintiff. It is asserted that in April, 1977, the defendant went to the shop of the plaintiff to receive the amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of rent due from the aforesaid tenant Balbir Singh. The plaintiff refused to pay the amount saying that nothing was standing in the credit of Balbir Singh but since the defendant was in need, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- and the defendant affixed his signatures on the pronote and receipt. It is thus alleged that the plaintiff obtained alleged signatures on blank pronote and receipt forms on the assurance that if the requisite amount is paid to him by Balbir Singh, then he would destroy the pronote and receipt.
In the replication, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant had taken a loan of Rs.5,250/- vide cheque drawn on the State Bank of India on 05.05.1982 and defendant repaid Rs.6,000/- on 18.04.1984.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender without licence?OPD
2. Whether the suit is not competent in view of the legal objection in the written statement?OPD
3. Whether the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents? If so, to what effect? OPD
4. Whether the defendant obtained a loan of Rs.25000/-
from the plaintiff on 28.6.85 and executed pronote and receipt on receiving consideration amount? OPP
5. Whether the defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2% per month? If so, to what rate of interest the plaintiff is entitled? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff has complied with the provisions of Punjab Regulation of Accounts Act? OPP GULATI DIWAKER 2014.10.14 13:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.1429 of 1997 3
7. Whether the pronote and receipt are without consideration? OPD
8. Relief.
In order to prove the case, the plaintiff appeared as his own witness as PW-3 and produced money lending licences Ex.P19, P20, P21 and P22 as the licenses for the different period valid up to 06.11.1993. The plaintiff-Krishan Kumar produced pronote (Ex.P2) and receipt (Ex.P3) said to be executed by the defendant on 28.06.1985 on receipt of consideration of Rs.25,000/- and also produced Ex.P4 to Ex.P8, extract from the accounts maintained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also relied upon cheque dated 05.05.1982 (Ex.P1) said to be given to the defendant as loan by examining PW1 Om Parkash, Record Keeper of State Bank of India, Muktsar. PW-4 Krishan Lal is attesting witness of the receipt (Ex.P3). PW2 is Dewan K.S. Puri, Handwriting Expert, who has deposed that disputed signatures on cheque (Ex.P1), pronote (Ex.P2) and receipt (Ex.P3) are of the defendant. On the other hand, defendant appeared as his own witness as DW1 and also examined Sh. A.K. Gupta, Handwriting and Document Expert as DW2.
After considering the evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court found that receipt (Ex.P3) and pronote (Ex.P2) are executed by the defendant and consequently decreed the suit. The learned first Appellate Court setting aside the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and dismissed the suit. The relevant findings read as under:-
"10. I carefully perused the pronote Ex.P2 and receipt Ex.P-3 myself in the light of the above submission. First of all the said documents filled by the plaintiff-respondent himself, when there GULATI DIWAKER 2014.10.14 13:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.1429 of 1997 4 are large number of deed writers at Muktsar, but it is not understood why the document was not scribed from regular deed writer. It is undisputed, rather admitted that the plaintiff- respondent is a money lender. Naturally he would be well aware how to write-fill in the pronote and receipt and at which place the adhesive stamps are to be affixed. The perusal of Ex.P-2 and Ex.P- 3 shows that the stamps have been affixed at an unnatural place. It shows that the same were not affixed at the time when Gurpal Singh allegedly signed it. Moreover, no date or signatures of Gurpal Singh are thereon the said stamps. The other point which shows the falsity of the case of the respondent-plaintiff is that if infact Gurpal Singh appellant had received an amount of Rs.5000/- and he did sign in English script why the receipt of amount was not got recorded from him in his handwriting. Then most suspicious circumstance is that why the witnesses of alleged pronote and receipt did write in their own handwriting that Rs.25,000/- was received in their presence. It shows that these persons have signed the document later on at the behest of the plaintiff-respondent. They too have committed forgery. While committing a wrong conscience of men becomes the best and the worst evidence against him. He trembles. Moreover, there is a cutting in the date 28.6.85 written by Parmod Kumar. There is over writing in digit '6' and digit '2' and to make the matter clear the plaintiff attempted to add- Behari in the letter 'Panch' which has been made 'Panchi'. No explanation has been given by the plaintiff-respondent for their over-writings and forgeries. Even none of these made up witnesses were produced in witness box by the plaintiff-respondent. Had they appeared they could have been cross examined. So, until and unless, these persons were not examined by him and they were given up, neither due execution of the pronote and receipt can be said to have been proved nor the passing of consideration can be said to have taken place."
The plaintiff has not pleaded the advancement of loan of Rs.5,250/- vide cheque Ex.P1 dated 05.05.1982 in the plaint, it was so stated in the rejoinder only. A perusal of the pronote (Ex.P2) and the receipt (Ex.P3) shows that signatures of Gurpal Singh, the defendant are not on the stamps affixed. Though, there is no attesting witness on GULATI DIWAKER 2014.10.14 13:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.1429 of 1997 5 the pronote part of the document but in respect of receipt part, Parmod Kumar Chuchra and Krishan Lal son of Daulat Ram are the two attesting witnesses. There is date underneath the signatures of Parmod Kumar Chuchra as well as over-writing whereas there is no date underneath the signatures of Gurpal Singh, the defendant. The amount of Rs.25,000/- mentioned in the endorsement signed by Krishan Lal has also overwriting. The stamp on the pronote part had the words written 12500/- as half of the amount of pronote. The stamps have been cancelled on the basis of writings which are in the hand of the person who has filled up the receipt and pronote. They are not in the hands of Gurpal Singh. There is no date mentioned under the signatures of the defendant who signed in English, whereas the date and the amount mentioned by the attesting witnesses. It is an unusual mode of execution of pronote. The manner of execution of pronote creates enough doubt in respect of execution of pronote and receipt by the defendant. It only confirms the finding recorded that the signatures of the defendant were obtained on blank papers and has been used for preparation of pronote and receipt.
The findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court, that execution of the pronote (Ex.P2) and the receipt (Ex.P3) are not proved to be executed on the date and time purported and has been prepared on an already signed document, is based upon proper appreciation of evidence. The learned first Appellate Court has considered the entire evidence in minute detail. Even with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the evidence and find that there is no error in the findings of fact recorded GULATI DIWAKER 2014.10.14 13:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.1429 of 1997 6 by learned first Appellate Court which may warrant interference in the present Regular Second Appeal.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE OCTOBER 10, 2014 'D. Gulati' GULATI DIWAKER 2014.10.14 13:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document