1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. Civil First Appeal No.122/1992 (Vinod Kumar Kanrundia Versus Satya Narain & Another) Date of Judgment :: 5th February, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. J.P. Goyal ) for the appellant with ) Ms. Manisha Surana ) Mr. H.S. Khandelwal) for the respondents Mr. S.K. Budhania ) BY THE COURT: This regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the defendant is directed against impugned judgment and decree dated 6th March, 1992 passed by District Judge, Jhunjhunu in Civil Suit No. 99/1987, whereby the learned trial court has decreed the suit of plaintiffs for recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 18th November, 1987 till the date of its realization. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,000/- against defendant-appellant wherein it was pleaded that 2 defendant Vinod Kumar took a loan of Rs. 20,000/- on 21st December, 1981 for business with interest @ 2% per month after writing a Tehrir in this regard in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant paid only a sum of Rs. 1200/- towards interest three times and thereafter did not pay any amount. It was further pleaded in the plaint that defendant settled the account on 1st December, 1984. He got the interest till 30th November, 1984 waived from the plaintiff and wrote a fresh Tehrir of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and also agreed to pay interest @ 2% per month. The Tehrir was written on stamp and the same was signed by the defendant. The defendant has not paid any amount even thereafter and in these circumstances a notice was served upon the defendant, but he failed to make the payment of the amount of loan taken by him, therefore, the present suit was filed for original amount of Rs. 20,000/- and interest of Rs. 14,000/-; thus, total amount of Rs. 34,000/-. The defendant filed its written- statement, wherein he denied the contents of plaint and pleaded that he did not take a loan of the amount in dispute from the plaintiff. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the 3 parties, the learned trial court framed five issues on 17th August, 1990. The plaintiff examined PW-1 Satya Narain, PW-2 Moti Lal, PW-3 Parmeshwar Lal and produced the documentary evidence including written Tehrir in respect of disputed amount duly signed by defendant. The defendant examined himself as DW-1. The learned trial court, after considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, entire pleading and evidence available on record, decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants and consequently decreed the suit. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned trial court has committed an illegality in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff despite the fact that defendant specifically stated in his written- statement that no such loan was taken from the plaintiff. He further contended that although the defendant admitted his signature on Ex.-2, but he put a signature on blank stamp, therefore, the contents of it should not have been believed and decree should not have been passed in the matter. No other submission has been advanced on behalf of the appellant. 5. The learned counsel for the 4 respondents contended that learned trial court has rightly passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant took a loan of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- initially on 21st December, 1981 and paid the interest of Rs. 1200/- and thereafter no amount was paid by him. The defendant himself settled the matter on 1st December, 1984 and admitted the earlier dues, but got the interest waived upto that period and wrote a fresh Tehrir in favour of the plaintiff to pay the amount with interest @ 2% per month. He further submitted that the defendant has admitted his signature on the written Tehrir, therefore the finding of learned trial court in this regard is based on oral and documentary evidence and no interference in the said finding is called for. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned judgment as well as the record of the trial court. The plaintiff filed his suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,000/-, wherein it was specifically pleaded that initially the defendant took a loan of Rs. 20,000/- on 21st December, 1981 and a written Tehrir in this regard was written by one Parmeshwar Lal and defendant put his signature 5 on the same. Thereafter the account was settled on 1st December, 1984. The interest upto 30th November, 1984 was waived by plaintiff and fresh written Tehrir was written by one Moti Lal on stamp of Rs. 3/- and defendant put his signature on the same admitting the amount of loan and condition of interest. The plaintiff PW-1 Satya Narain, in his statement, has stated about giving loan by him to defendant and execution of Ex.-1 and Ex.-2 by defendant. The plaintiff has also examined Moti Lal PW-2, who wrote second written Tehrir Ex.-2 duly signed by defendant. The plaintiff has also examined PW-3 Parmeshwar Lal, who wrote Ex.-1, first written Tehrir of 1981. DW-1 Vinod Kumar in his cross-examination specifically admitted that Ex.-2 is the same stamp, which was purchased by him and it bears his signature on it marked as A to B. He also admitted that he put the date i.e. 1st December, 1981 on it below his signature A to B. He also admitted that the stamp of Ex. -1 was also purchased by him and it bears his signature marked as A to B. In the present case, it is clear from the admission of defendant DW-1 Vinod Kumar that he executed both the written Tehrirs Ex.-1 and Ex.-2 of 1981 and 1984. All these evidence have been 6 taken into consideration by the learned trial court while deciding the issues and rightly recorded the finding on all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The finding of the learned trial court is based on oral and documentary evidence and admission of defendant himself in his cross-examination before the trial court. When defendant has admitted his signature on Ex.-1 and Ex.-2, then there is a presumption that he has also admitted the contents of these documents. It is also relevant to mention that when a notice was given by plaintiff to pay the amount, then defendant did not give any reply to it also. In these circumstances, I do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. In my view, the finding of the learned trial court is absolutely justified and based on oral and documentary evidence and no interference in it is called for. 7. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK