Regular Second Appeal No. 2639 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2639 of 2007 Date of decision: April 10, 2008 Jarnail Singh …..APPELLANT Versus Makhan Lal …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Ashish Grover, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S.MANN, J. Suit for recovery of Rs.26,000/- filed by the plaintiff- respondent was decreed for a sum of Rs. 23,000/- by learned trial Court and the appeal preferred against the same by the defendant-appellant, dismissed by learned first Appellate Court. Aggrieved of the same, the defendant-appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff-respondent was a money-lender, but he had not obtained any licence as such. Further that, pronote and receipt Ex.P-1 and P-2 were not scribed by any independent witness, but by son of the plaintiff- respondent and therefore, these documents could not be relied upon to decree the suit in question. It is also submitted that pronote Ex.P-1 and receipt Ex.P-2 were got signed by the plaintiff-respondent from the Regular Second Appeal No. 2639 of 2007 -2- appellant by fraud, coercion and undue influence. Therefore, the findings arrived at by learned lower Courts cannot be sustained. No evidence is available on the record from which it could be even inferred that the plaintiff-respondent had been engaged as a money-lender. Even the witnesses, who appeared on behalf of the defendant-appellant did not state anywhere regarding the plaintiff being a money-lender. It is a fact that pronote Ex.P-1 and receipt Ex.P-2 were scribed by son of the plaintiff-respondent, but that is no ground to disbelieve those documents. There is no legal bar that a close relative of lender of the money cannot scribe the pronote and receipt. The defendant-appellant has admitted appending his thumb impressions on the pronote as well as the receipt. Though the defendant claimed that the same were the result of fraud, coercion and undue influence, but no such allegations were levelled by him during his examination-in-chief. In his written statement, the defendant stated that he had been taking agricultural land on lease from the villagers, which he had been cultivating and selling the yielded produce. However, while appearing as DW-1, the defendant claimed that he had not been doing so. The plaintiff while appearing as PW-1 deposed that the defendant had been dealing in the business of sale and purchase of animals. It appears Regular Second Appeal No. 2639 of 2007 -3- that the defendant is not a simple person, but an experienced hand, knowing the intricacies of the execution of the documents. Once thumb impressions on pronote Ex.P-1 and receipt Ex.P-2 are admitted, the Court is justified in drawing a presumption as to the passing of consideration. In view of the above, no case is made out for interfering in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by learned lower Courts. No such questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, arise for consideration. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, being without any merit. April 10, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE