Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 3339
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
L.N.Mittal, J.
Arjun Singh
Versus
Gurdev Singh
Regular Second Appeal No. 4794 of 2010,
Decided On : DECEMBER 15, 2010
Presumption of consideration under section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the sufficiency of evidence to support allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.
Headnote:
Pronote - Borrowing Money - The court found that the defendant had borrowed money from the plaintiff and executed a pronote and receipt for the same. The defendant's plea of fraud and misrepresentation was not supported by sufficient evidence, and the presumption of consideration under section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not rebutted. The lower appellate court's finding in favor of the plaintiff was deemed justified and not warranting interference in the second appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant alleging that the defendant borrowed a specific amount and failed to repay it. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court decreed it in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant had borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and executed a pronote and receipt for it. The defendant's plea of fraud and misrepresentation was not supported by sufficient evidence. The lower appellate court's finding in favor of the plaintiff was deemed justified and not warranting interference in the second appeal.
Issues: Dispute over borrowing money, execution of pronote and receipt, and allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.
Ratio Decidendi: The presumption of consideration under section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not rebutted by the defendant's testimony. The lower appellate court's finding in favor of the plaintiff was deemed justified and not warranting interference in the second appeal.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed in limine as the court found no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arising for determination.
L.N.Mittal, J.
1. Defendant Arjun Singh who was successful in the trial court but remained unsuccessful in the lower appellate court has filed the instant second appeal.
2. Respondent-plaintiff Gurdev Singh filed suit against defendant appellant alleging that on 1.6.2007, defendant borrowed Rs.5,12,225/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt for the same and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 1.40 % per month but the defendant failed to pay the principal and interest amount. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed Rs.5,12,225/- as the principal amount and Rs.89,639.34 as interest till filing of the suit at the aforesaid agreed rate. The plaintiff, thus, filed suit for recovery of total amount of Rs.6,01,864.34.
3. The defendant controverted the plaint allegations. Defendant denied having borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that he had approached the plaintiff to borrow some money but the plaintiff expressed his helplessness to lend any money to the defendant. The plaintiff asked the plaintiff to execute pronote and receipt in his favour assuring that the plaintiff would send the amount to the house of the defendant later on. However, the plaintiff neither paid the amount nor returned the pronote and receipt. The alleged pronote and receipt are without consideration and result of fraud and misrepresentation. Various other pleas were also raised.
4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo vide judgment and decree dated 20.3.2010 dismissed plaintiffs suit. However, first appeal preferred by the defendant has been allowed by learned District Judge, Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.2010 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff stands decreed. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.
6. The plaintiff himself appeared as PW1 and stated according to his version. He also examined Major Singh PW2 one of the attesting witnesses of the pronote-cum-receipt. He also supported the plaintiffs case. On the other hand, defendant himself appeared as DW1 and stated according to his own version.
7. The plaintiffs case is supported by attesting witness of the pronote-cum-receipt. The plaintiff and Major Singh PW have stated that defendant executed pronote and receipt after receiving loan amount of Rs.5,12,225/-. Defendant has admitted his signatures on pronote-cum-receipt. In fact, even in the written statement, the defendant has admitted the execution of the pronote and receipt although allegedly without consideration and being result of fraud and misrepresentation However, solitary, bald and oral statement of the defendant is not sufficient -to prove alleged fraud and misrepresentation. In addition to it, the defendant stated that his signatures had been obtained on blank pronote and receipt. However, the defendant also admitted that the pronote and receipt have been filled in by him i.e. in his own handwriting. It would depict that signatures of defendant had not been obtained on blank pronote and receipt. It would also depict that the defendant duly executed the pronote-cum-receipt by himself filling in the same. Thus, defendants own version and testimony further corroborate the plaintiffs case. Presumption of consideration arising under section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has not been rebutted by the defendants bald testimony. Consequently, there is presumption that the pronote was executed for consideration. The said presumption is further strengthened by cogent evidence led by the plaintiff and also by defendants own admissions referred to herein before.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff admitted that there was relationship of faith and confidence between the parties and they used to lend money to each other and this circumstance supports the defendants version that he handed over the pronote to the
