Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jang Singh vs Jang Singh on 21 September, 2015
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
RSA No. 4931 of 2015 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 4931 of 2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 21.09.2015
Jang Singh ....Appellant
Versus
Jang Singh ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. S.P. Soi, Advocate
for the appellant.
Surinder Gupta, J.
This is a Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of Courts below whereby the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent Jang Singh son of Lal Singh was decreed for recovery of ` 2,58,000/- i.e. ` 1,50,000/- as principal and ` 1,08,000/- as interest.
2. The case of plaintiff-respondent, in brief, is that the defendant-appellant Jang Singh son of Dalip Singh took loan of ` 1,50,000/- from him on 16.03.2006 and executed pronote and receipt in his favour. The rate of interest was agreed @ 2% per month. However, he committed default in payment of principal amount and installment and a sum of ` 2,58,000/- was outstanding against him at the time of filing of the suit.
3. The defendant-appellant denied taking of loan, execution of pronote and receipt in favour of plaintiff-respondent and alleged that there are material alterations and discrepancies in the pronote and receipt.
4. The Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala held the execution of pronote and receipt by the defendant- JITENDER KUMAR 2015.09.26 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 4931 of 2015 -2- appellant as proved and observed that he has failed to discharge the presumption of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and also testimony of Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert examined by the plaintiff- respondent who proved that the pronote and receipt dated 16.03.2006 bear thumb impressions of defendant-appellant. Not satisfied, the defendant-appellant filed appeal before the 1st Appellate Court which was also dismissed with observations in para 6 as follows:-
".......So from this it is absolutely clear that the thumb impression on the pronote is of defendant whereas defendant is opposing this fact by stating that he never executed any pronote which is not believable. As far as the passing of consideration is concerned, PW-3 Manoj Sharma specifically stated that defendant took a loan from the plaintiff. So in these circumstances the ld. Trial Court rightly held that "I am of the view that the presumption of due consideration is in favour of the plaintiff. On the contrary the burden lies upon the defendant as per section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act that how and in what circumstances his thumb impressions were affixed on the pronote as the handwriting and fingerprints expert Dr. Inderjit Singh duly corroborated the stand of the plaintiff by deposing that the thumb impressions in question belongs to the defendant.
Furthermore, except the defendant and his JITENDER KUMAR 2015.09.26 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 4931 of 2015 -3- neighbour no one else has stepped into the witness-box to rebut the presumption which was in favour of the plaintiff as science of thumb impressions is perfect science. No cogent evidence has been brought on record by the defendant to rebut the presumption which was in favour of the plaintiff and to rebut this fact that how and in what circumstances the thumb impressions of the defendant came on the promissory note."
5. I have heard learned counsel for the defendant- appellant and perused the paper-book with his assistance.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has argued that the plaintiff-respondent has not been able to prove that he possessed a sum of ` 1,50,000/- at the time of execution of pronote and receipt dated 16.03.2006. In support of his contention, he has referred to the statement of plaintiff wherein he has stated that an amount of ` 1,50,000/- was lying with him at his residence as he sold his tractor for ` 1,70,000/-. However, he has not produced any document regarding the sale of tractor. No witness to execution of pronote and receipt was examined by the plaintiff-respondent. Even if, the plaintiff-respondent has been able to prove that the pronote and receipt bear the thumb impressions of defendant-appellant, still the onus was on him to prove that it was executed for consideration.
7. The defendant-appellant has come up with the plea of denial of execution of pronote and receipt or taking of any loan. Gurdev Singh and Hakam Singh were the marginal witnesses of the receipt Ex. P-2. Admittedly, Hakam Singh has died. In order JITENDER KUMAR 2015.09.26 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 4931 of 2015 -4- to prove that the pronote and receipt were executed by the defendant-appellant, the plaintiff-respondent besides his own statement examined the Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert Dr. Inderjit Singh as PW-2, who on examination of signatures on the pronote and receipt and its comparison with his standard signatures gave opinion that the same were identical. Defendant- appellant has not come with any explanation regarding his thumb impressions on the pronote and receipt. He claims himself to be a landlord who own 7 killas of land. He has rather stated that he never put his thumb impressions on any blank pronote and receipt.
8. On the other hand, the plaintiff-respondent while appearing as PW-1 has categorically stated that the defendant- appellant came to his house to take the loan. The pronote and receipt were brought by the defendant-appellant himself. He was asked to get the pronote and receipt filled up at which the defendant-appellant went to Patiala Court and got the pronote and receipt filled from Manoj Sharma, Typist, who has also appeared as PW-3 and stated that he typed the pronote and receipt at the instance of defendant-appellant and after typing the same he handed over the original pronote and receipt to defendant-appellant.
9. In view of the statement of plaintiff-respondent supported by PW-2 Dr. Inderjit Singh Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert and PW-3 Manoj Sharma, both the Courts below committed no error of law and facts while reaching the conclusion holding the pronote and receipt as proved and the JITENDER KUMAR 2015.09.26 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 4931 of 2015 -5- defendant-appellant has failed to discharge the onus and prove that it was executed without consideration.
10. No question of law, what to talk of substantial question of law, arises in this appeal, which has not merit.
Dismissed.
September 21, 2015 ( SURINDER GUPTA)
jk JUDGE
JITENDER KUMAR
2015.09.26 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document