Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

To sum up the whole case in a nutshell, the non-production of the pronote, the want of reliable evidence to prove its alleged loss, the admission of the plaintiff that the pronote was defective, combined with the admission of the plaintiff that the pronote of 1924 had been paid off also go a long way to show that the pronote of 1924 could not have been renewed in 1927.

5. The plaintiff alleged that the document produced by the defendant which the latter avers is the pronote and relative receipt of 17th October 1924 is a forgery, and Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has contended that it is not open now at this stage to question the averment that it is a forgery because there is a finding that it is a forgery in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. He has further contended that it is not open now to question his averment that the receipt upon which he bases his suit is genuine because there is a finding that it is genuine in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. It is true that there are these two findings in favour of the respondent in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. These two findings are findings of fact which cannot be disturbed in second appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, has contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to bring his suit upon the basis of the receipt alleged to have been executed in 1927, be it genuine or be it a forgery, in the unexplained absence of the promissory note which was the main part of the document upon which the promissory note and the receipt were executed. In support of this contention he has referred to two decisions : Nazir Khan v. Ram Mohan 1931 All. 183 and Haji Anwar Khan v. Mohammad Khan 1929 All. 105. These two decisions undoubtedly support the contention of Learned Counsel for the appellant. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, has referred to a number of other authorities in which the principle is established that where the promissory note is in respect of an antecedent dobt or obligation and the promissory note is inadmissible in evidence for one reason or another, for example, if it is insufficiently stamped or if it is simply not produced by the plaintiff, it is open to the plaintiff to recover the amount due to him from his debtor by proving the antecedent liability; in other words by basing his suit upon a cause of action other than the promissory note.