RSA No.391 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.391 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 1.2.2010 Gurcharan Singh and another ......Appellant(s) Versus Major Singh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery on the basis of receipt and pronote was decreed. In the plaint, the plaintiff-respondent alleged that defendant- Baldev Singh took a cash loan of Rs.95,000/- on interest @ 2% per month from him and in lieu of this consideration, the defendant executed pronote and receipt dated 20.11.2002 in the presence of the witnesses and also received Rs.95,000/- in cash. Since the defendant failed to repay the aforesaid loan amount, the present suit for recovery of Rs.1,55,800 i.e Rs.95,000 as principal amount plus Rs.60,800/- as interest @ 2% per month as agreed was filed. The suit was contested by the defendant by denying the execution of pronote and receipt and a receipt of Rs.95,000/- in cash. The case set up by the defendant-appellants was that the plaintiff-respondent used to carry on the business of Commission Agency and the defendant had to pay Rs.40,000/- to the said Commission Agency. The plaintiff- respondent demanded the aforesaid amount of Rs.40,000/-. However, the RSA No.391 of 2010(O&M) 2 defendant was not in a position to pay the same and therefore, it was settled that the defendant would execute a pronote and receipt of Rs.50,000/- which will include Rs.40,000/- as principal amount outstanding in the said Commission Agency and Rs.10,000/- as interest. The defendant was taken by the plaintiff to the Document Writer where he was made to sign the pronote and receipt. It is the further case of the defendant that he paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff after withdrawing the same from the Cooperative Bank on 14.5.2003 in the presence of witnesses. However, the plaintiff failed to return the pronote and receipt and the present suit has been filed on the basis of forged and fabricated document. Remaining averments of the plaintiff were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed . The Courts below on appreciation of evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. Still not satisfied, the appellants have filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that actual amount received by Baldev Singh was returned by him and therefore, findings of the Courts below are contrary to the evidence on record. On the basis of the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal: “Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse?” I have herd learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. There is a legal presumption of every negotiable instrument for lawful consideration and it is for the defendant to prove that no RSA No.391 of 2010(O&M) 3 consideration was paid in lieu of pronote and receipt. The execution of pronote and receipt is not disputed by the appellants. The stand taken by them is that Baldev Singh had executed pronote for a sum of Rs.50,000/- which was paid to the plaintiff-respondent on 14.5.2003. A finding of fact has been recorded by the Courts below that the defendant-appellant could not prove his plea that he paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff- respondent. The plea of the appellants that on payment of Rs.50,000/- pronote and receipt were not returned by the plaintiff-respondent is unbelievable. There is nothing on record on the basis of which the findings of the Courts below can be found faulted with. On appreciation of evidence, the concurrent finding of fact has been recorded against the defendant-appellants. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 1, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE