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
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.
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 Vs Gurpal Singh
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Citation;AIR2015(NOC)2 P&H
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
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?
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
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
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
by learned first Appellate Court which may warrant interference in the
present Regular Second Appeal.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
OCTOBER 10, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment