ORDER

Heard the parties.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the defendant/appellant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2019, passed in S.T.A. No. 07/2017, by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura, whereby the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura, dismissing the appeal has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2017 and 12.10.2017 passed in Title (Money) Suit No. 14/2009 by the Sub Judge-I, Sheikhpura, whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

3. The plaintiff/respondent has filed the Title Suit for declaration, that the Deed of Agreement dated 22.09.2003 is valid, operative, and binding upon the defendant, and for further direction that the defendant be directed to pay the lent amount along with interest with relief to cost of litigation and any other reliefs.

4. Plaintiff case in short, that the plaintiff and defendant had cordial relation being friends, plaintiff used to run a sweet shop, whereas the defendant having grocery shop just adjacent, as there had friendly relation defendant taken amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- in the month of September 2003 as lent and has executed a Deed of Agreement on 22.09.2003 putting signature in the presence of the witnesses with assurance to return the amount within six months, but the defendant failed to pay the said amount within time, then plaintiff sent Legal Notice to the defendant and ultimately when amount was not paid plaintiff filed Criminal Case No. 291(C)/2008 which was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura on 12.1.2009 with an observation that the complainant (plaintiff of this case) can file Money Suit and as such the plaintiff filed suit for aforesaid reliefs.

5. Defendant/appellant/appellant appeared, filed written statement denying case of the plaintiff stating therein that the suit is not maintainable as framed and also barred by law of limitation, principle of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence, also barred by res-judicata as well as the suit is barred by Section 4/5 of the Bihar Money Lending Act. It was further pleaded by the defendant that there had no good relation between the parties or having friendly relation though the defendant has admitted that the plaintiff having sweet shop and defendant used to take sweets from the shop, but defendant had no grocery shop and he never borrowed any money for the purpose of his own business. The defendant further pleaded that he never executed the said Deed of Agreement dated 22.09.2003 nor there is any signature of the defendant. It was further case of the defendant/appellant that adjacent west to the shop of the plaintiff there is a rest house belonging to one Kedar Prasad. It was further pleaded by the defendant in his written statement that actually in the year 2002 the plaintiff himself expressed desire to start a grocery shop in partnership and accordingly a grocery shop was started in partnership between the plaintiff and defendant and for that purpose a Non-Judicial Stamp of Rs. 100/- was purchased which could not been used and remained blank, therefore, a doubt arose that the plaintiff might have obtained signature of the defendant under influence of intoxication, and it was further pleaded that the defendant for the first time had come to knowledge only when he got legal notice of the plaintiff and as such the defendant claimed that he never put his signature in any alleged Deed in his sense. The defendant further admitted that a wholesale business of grocery was started in partnership but the plaintiff fraudulently grabbed all the profits showing loss in the partnership business and lastly the defendant pleaded that he never took any single pie from the plaintiff, never executed any Deed and the alleged agreement is not binding upon the defendant/appellant.

6. The plaintiff/respondent/respondent in support of his case examined three witnesses and exhibited altogether three Exhibits including the Deed of Agreement dated 22.09.2003