RSA No.3646 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3646 of 2009 Date of Decision: 01.02.2010. Roor Singh .……Appellant Versus Roor Singh and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendant Roor Singh has preferred the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Respondents filed suit against the defendant appellant for recovery of Rs.2,75,000/- alleging that the defendant on 15.12.1998 borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiffs and executed pronote and receipt for the same and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 2% per month. However, the defendant failed to pay the amount. The plaintiffs accordingly sought recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs.75,000/- as interest thereon till the filing of the suit at the rate of 12.5% per annum only, thereby seeking recovery of total amount of Rs.2,75,000/- . Defendant in the written statement pleaded that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiffs nor executed any pronote and receipt. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs are labourers only, working on daily wages and had no capacity to pay the huge amount RSA No.3646 of 2009 -2- of Rs.2,00,000/-. The defendant also alleged that the plaintiffs might have played fraud with the defendants, who had purchased 17 kanals 7 marlas land from the plaintiffs for Rs.3,25,612/- vide sale deed dated 15.12.1998 registered on 22.12.1998. The plaintiffs in their replication clarified that the defendant did not have full sale consideration with him for the land purchased by him from the plaintiffs and, therefore, the defendant for the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- which he did not pay, executed the pronote and receipt. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Zira vide judgment and decree dated 28.03.2008 decreed the suit of plaintiffs for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12.5% per annum from due date till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant stands dismissed by learned District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 01.04.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case, examined both marginal witnesses of the pronote-cum-receipt i.e Mukha Panch (Member Panchayat) of the village of the plaintiffs as PW-2 and Anokh Singh Lambardar of the village of the defendant as PW-3. Plaintiff No.1 also himself appeared in the witness-box as PW-1. All of them broadly stated according to the version of the plaintiffs. On the other hand, defendant himself appeared as DW-1 and broadly stated according to his own version. RSA No.3646 of 2009 -3- Both the Courts below have arrived at concurrent finding of fact that the defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiffs as balance sale consideration of the land purchased by the defendant from the plaintiffs and executed the aforesaid pronote and receipt. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. Plaintiffs’ evidence is far more cogent and reliable and outweighs the evidence of the defendant. In fact, there is only self-serving bald and oral statement of the defendant in support of his version whereas the plaintiffs have examined both attesting witnesses of the receipt and one of the said witnesses is Lambardar belonging to the village of defendant whereas other witness is Member Panchayat belonging to the village of the plaintiffs. Admittedly the defendant had purchased land from the plaintiffs. The version of the plaintiffs is that the defendant did not have full sale consideration for the said land and, therefore, for balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- which the defendant could not pay, the defendant executed pronote and receipt. It is significant to notice that the defendant has admitted his signatures on the pronote and receipt in question. Thus defendant's own statement also corroborates the version of the plaintiffs. Bald and oral statement of the defendant himself is not sufficient to prove the alleged fraud pleaded by the defendant. On the other hand, under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, there is presumption that pronote which is a negotiable instrument was executed for consideration. The said presumption is not rebutted by self-serving RSA No.3646 of 2009 -4- oral statement of the defendant. On the other hand, evidence of the plaintiffs is cogent and reliable to prove consideration for the pronote. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiffs in the plaint pleaded that the defendant had borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiffs and it was only after defendant pleaded in the written statement that he had purchased land from the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs in their replication came out with their version that the pronote and receipt were executed for balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- which the defendant could not pay out of sale price of the land purchased by him from the plaintiffs. However, this version pleaded by the plaintiffs in their replication is in no way contradictory to the version pleaded in the plaint because learned counsel for the appellant concedes that even in the plaint, the plaintiffs did not plead that the amount had been advanced in cash by the plaintiffs to the defendant. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the plaintiffs being labourers on daily wages did not have the capacity to give loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. This plea of the defendant is also wholly unsustainable because the defendant himself has pleaded that he purchased 17 kanals 7 marlas land from the plaintiffs for Rs.3,25,312/-. Consequently, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were only labourers on daily wages and had no capacity to advance the loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no perversity or illegality in the judgments of the Courts below so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in second appeal. No RSA No.3646 of 2009 -5- question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is found to be lacking any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 01.02.2010 A. Kaundal