RSA No.4617 of 2009 (O&M -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4617 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:11.12.2009. Dhan Singh .... Appellant VERSUS Baljeet Kaur .... Respondent CORAM:Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Ms. Poonam Verma, Advocate for the appellant. *** SABINA, J. (ORAL) Bachan Kaur-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,20,400/- alongwith interest @ 2% p.m. from the defendant-Dhan Singh on the ground that defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- on 13.09.2000 from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same alongwith interest @ 2% p.m. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla, vide judgement and decree dated 12.09.2006. In appeal, filed by the defendant, the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. The brief facts of the case as noticed by trial Court in para Nos.1 and 2 of the judgment, reads as under: - “That on 13.09.2000, defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff and promised to return the same on demand alongwith interest @ 2% p.m. Defendant also executed a pronote and receipt regarding receipt of Rs.70,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant did not return the amount due thereon to the plaintiff despite repeated demands. The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.70,000/- as principal amount plus Rs.50,400/- as interest @2%p.m. w.e.f. RSA No.4617 of 2009 (O&M -2- 13.09.2000 to 12.09.2003, totaling to Rs.1,20,400/- from the defendant alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 2% p.m. till realization of the decretal amount. The defendant has failed to make the payment despite repeated requests. Hence, the present suit. Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement, wherein it is submitted that plaintiff is the real grand-mother of the defendant and Baljit Kaur is the daughter of the plaintiff, who executed a sale deed of her property in favour of defendant and others. At that time, Baljit Kaur and plaintiff in lieu of maintenance got executed the alleged pronote of Rs.70,000/- from the defendant and other vendees. No amount against the alleged pronote and receipt has never been passed. The pronote is thus, without consideration. The question of return of the alleged amount does not arise. The plaintiff filed replication, wherein the allegations of the plaint were reiterated and those of written statement were denied.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: - 1. Whether the defendant has borrowed the sum of Rs.70,000/- as prayed for and in lieu thereof executed the pronote and receipt dated13.09.2000 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether the pronote and receipt relied upon by the plaintiff are forged and fictitious documents? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the interest as prayed for? OPP 4. Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Bachan Kaur-plaintiff had filed suit for recovery, basing her claim RSA No.4617 of 2009 (O&M -3- on pronote and receipt dated 13.09.2000. In order to prove due execution of the pronote and receipt, plaintiff examined Raj Kumar Singla, deed writer as PW-2 and Sukhdev Singh, PW-3 one of the attesting witness of the receipt. The pronote and receipt were proved on record by the said witnesses as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. Appellant-defendant had not denied his signatures on the pronote and receipt but had taken plea that no consideration had passed in lieu of the pronote and receipt. Since the execution of the pronote and receipt was duly proved by the plaintiff, a presumption arises that the same had been executed for consideration. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record have given a finding of fact that the execution of the pronote and receipt was duly proved. The said finding of fact calls for no interference by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Accordingly, this same is dismissed. 11.12.2009 (SABINA) shamsher Judge