Madan Lal vs Pushpa Devi

Rajiv Sharma, J

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.1.2012 rendered by the Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, in RBT Civil Appeal No. 137-D/10/2007. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff" for convenience sake) filed a suit against the appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant" for convenience sake) seeking recovery of Rs. 2,72,000/-.

According to the plaintiff, the defendant executed two pronotes of Rs. 1,00,000/- each in favour of Parkash Chand, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? husband of the plaintiff on 11.5.2001. Parkash Chand was alive at that time when defendant received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from him. Parkash Chand has died on 9.1.2002. The defendant was asked by the husband of the plaintiff several times to return the money, however all in vain. Notice was also issued to the defendant to repay the amount. It is in these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,72,000/-.

The suit was contested by the defendant. On merits, the defendant stated that the plaintiff is not legally wedded wife of late Parkash Chand. It was denied that he had executed the pronotes in question in favour of Parkash Chand. He has not received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Parkash Chand. According to him, the pronotes were forged.

Replication to the written statement was filed by the plaintiff.

Learned trial court framed issues on 29.6.2005 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 30.10.2006. The defendant preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, who dismissed the same on 7.1.2012. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal.

Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate, on the basis of substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the courts below have misread Ext. PW 2/A and Ext. PW 2/B. She also contended that the provisions of Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1976 have been mis-interpreted by the courts below. According to her, the suit of the plaintiff was barred by limitation. She further contended that the plaintiff was not legally wedded wife of Parkash Chand.

Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, has supported the judgments and decrees passed by learned courts below.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments passed by the learned courts below carefully.

The pronotes are Ext. PW 2/A and Ext. PW 2/B. The plaintiff has examined PW 2, Suresh Pathania. He has scribed the pronotes Ext. PW 2/A and Ext. PW 2/B on 11.5.2001. According to him, the contents of the pronotes were read over and explained to the defendant, who appended his signatures on pronotes and receipts. Parkash Chand and Madan Lal were in their full senses at the time of executing the pronotes. The entry was made in the Register vide Ext. PW 2/C. The version of PW 2 has been supported by PW 3, Dev Raj, who is a marginal witness. According to him, the defendant has taken loan from Parkash Chand in order to run his business. PW 1 has supported the contents made in the plaint.

The defendant has appeared as DW 2. He has admitted in cross-examination that he had acquaintance with the deceased-Parkash Chand. He was on visiting terms with him. He has also admitted in cross-examination that the deceased Parkash Chand was not doing business of money lending. DW 1, Nand Kishore, Advocate, has deposed that the pronote was scribed on 11.5.2000 instead of 11.5.2001. However, it has come in the statement of PW 2, Suresh Pathania that the pronote was scribed on 11.5.2001. PW 2 has also deposed that the contents of pronotes were read over and explained to the defendant and, thereafter, he appended his signatures in his presence. The entry to this effect was made in the register vide Ext. PW 2/C on 11.5.2001. On the receipts of the pronotes, Mark A and Mark B, the date mentioned is 11.5.2001. The plaintiff has proved the execution of pronotes Ext. PW 2/A and Ext. PW 2/B. Even DW 1, Nand Kishore, in his cross-examination has admitted that the pronotes were executed on 11.5.2001. The loan advanced to the defendant was friendly loan. The defendant has admitted that the husband of the plaintiff was not a money lender. Thus, there was no requirement of registration under the provisions of H.P. Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1976. The courts below have correctly appreciated the provisions of H.P. Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1976. Moreover, the defendant has admitted that he was on visiting terms with Parkash Chand. Thus, it was not a case of money lending, but it was a case of friendly loan. The Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that both the pronotes were executed on 11.5.2001, though by bona fide mistake, the date is mentioned as 11.5.2000 in Ext. PW 1/A. The suit was required to be filed on 10.5.2004. Though the suit has been filed on 11.5.2004, but 8th, 9th and 10th May, 2004 were gazetted holidays. As such, the suit was filed on 11.5.2004 within limitation. The defendant has not led any tangible evidence to prove that the plaintiff is not a legally wedded wife of late Parkash Chand. The plaintiff has obtained succession certificate from the competent Court of law. The Courts below have rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, there is no question of law much less to say substantial question of law involved in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.