Krishan Kumar Vs Gurpal Singh on 10 October 2014 in the
Punjab Haryana High Court
How to get the evidence for the suit based on the promissory
note?
A money lender will be aware to know about how to write or
fill in the suit and also to receipt it. They should also know which place the
adhesive stamps are to be affixed in the receipt. Most of the people affix the
stamp at an unnatural place. For example, in the case of Gurpal Singh, it was
not affixed and no date or signatures of Gurpal Singh was not done in the said
stamps. They had signed the document after the behest of the
plaintiff-respondent. So they too have committed forgery. There is no explanation
has been provided by the plaintiff-respondent for their over-writings and
counterfeits. The stamp on the pronote part contains the words written as
12500/- which is the half of the amount of pronote. All the stamps have been
canceled which are on the basis of writings of the person that will be filled
up by the receipt and pronote.
_______________________
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
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 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
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?
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 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 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 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 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 I
attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document by learned first
Appellate Court which may warrant interference in the present Regular Second
Appeal.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE
OCTOBER 10, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment