Sardara Singh vs Shamsher Singh

Hemant Gupta, J.—The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court on 24.10.1991 and affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court on 12.02.1992 whereby suit for recovery of Rs. 9990/- on the basis of pro-note and receipt dated 06.06.1988 was decreed. The plaintiff claimed that defendant raised a loan of Rs. 8600/- on 06.06.1988 and executed a receipt and a pro-note with a stipulation that he will return the said amount along with interest at the rate of 2% per month. In the written statement, the stand of the defendant was that of denial of the execution of pro-note and receipt and that the plaintiff was alleged to be a money lender.

The plaintiff himself appeared as PW-1 before the learned trial Court and has examined Major Singh as PW-2, the scribe of pronote Ex. P1 and receipt Ex. P2, Sohan Lal as PW-3, the attesting witness of receipt Ex. P2. The Plaintiff deposed in respect of execution of pronote by the defendant in the presence of the witnesses. In cross-examination, the plaintiff denied that the defendant was in jail from 30.04.1988 to 09.06.1988 and also denied the suggestion that signatures of the defendant on the said documents were obtained from the defendant while he was in jail. He denied the suggestion that signatures of the defendant are forged signatures. PW-2 Major Singh deposed that he scribed the pronote Ex. P1 and receipt Ex. P2 and that the defendant signed the same after the same was read over to him and admitted the content of the same to be correct. In cross-examination, he stated that he has written pronote and receipt on 10.06.1988 but put the date as 06.06.1988 at the instance of the defendant. PW 3 Sohan Lal has attested the pronote Ex P1 and receipt Ex. P2 and deposed that the defendant has signed on the pronote and receipt in his presence.

On the other hand, the defendant himself appeared as DW-1 and examined DW-2 Bhupinder Singh, Warden, Central Jail, Jalandhar. DW-2 Bhupinder Singh deposed that he has brought the summoned record and as per the record Sardara Singh was lodged in jail on 02.05.1988 and was released on bail from the jail on 13.06.1988. He cannot depose that Sardara Singh, who was released on bail from jail on 13.06.1988 was the same Sardara Singh against whom the present case has been filed.

The learned trial Court examined the entire evidence and found that the defendant has not led any evidence that signatures on pronote and receipt are not his signatures. It was incumbent upon the defendant to get his specimen signatures compared with disputed signatures. The Court found that even the suggestion given to the witnesses of the plaintiff that signatures of the defendant were obtained in jail amounts to proof of the signatures of the defendant on pronote Ex. P1 and receipt Ex. P2. Apart from the said inferences, the learned trial Court relied upon the oral evidence of the plaintiff''s witnesses to return a finding that the defendant has executed pronote and receipt after receiving the amount and has not paid any amount to the plaintiff. The Court raised presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the defendant. In view of the said finding, the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 9900/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% from the date of decree till the date of realization. The appeal against the said judgment was dismissed inter alia by the learned first Appellate Court for the reason that defendant has not made any effort to get his admitted signatures compared with the disputed signatures and that defendant himself admitted in the cross-examination that decree for a sum of more than Rs. 2 lakhs has already been passed against him by the learned trial Court and he has taken loans from 2-3 other persons on the basis of pronotes and receipts.

In the present second appeal, the defendant-appellant has not raised any substantial question of law. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant was in custody till 13.06.1988. Therefore, there cannot be any presumption that he has executed the pronote and receipt on 06.06.1988.

The defendant-appellant has not raised such plea in the written statement that he was in custody on 06.06.1988, the date when alleged pronote was executed. DW-2 Bhupinder Singh deposed that he cannot say that Sardara Singh and the defendant is same person who was released on bail from jail on 13.06.1988. The stand of the appellant is that the Warden, Central Jail, Jalandhar, has deposed that Sardara Singh son of Sher Singh son of Bela Singh was in custody up to 13.06.1988. The said statement is meaningless in the absence of the stand of the defendant in the written statement that he was in custody. Furthermore, the learned trial Court has found that cross-examination conducted on the witnesses of the plaintiff that the signatures of the defendant were obtained in jail is suggestive of the admission of the defendant of his signatures on the pronote and receipt. Still further the defendant has not examined any Handwriting Expert to prove that the signatures on the pronote and receipt are not that of the defendant. It is a finding of fact recorded by the Courts below regarding execution of pronote by the defendant. Such finding of fact does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Consequently, the present regular second appeal is dismissed.