Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 766
2011(2) Law Herald (P&H) 981
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
RSA No.3126 of 2008 (O & M)
Krishanpal Singh
v.
Roop Singh
{Decided on 15/03/2011}
For the Appellant:Mr. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Revenue stamp--Affixing of--Admissibility--Expert opined that revenue stamp on the receipt has been affixed later on is insignificant--Even receipt without revenue stamp could be admitted in evidence on payment of stamp charges with penalty.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 S.118--Pronote-cum-receipt--Execution of--Proof of--Suit for recovery--Defendant executed pronote-cum-receipt--Plaintiff led cogent and reliable evidence by examining scribe and attesting witness of the pronote-cum-receipt and himself also stepped into the witness box--Plaintiff’s evidence not rebutted by defendant himself--Defendant also admitted his signatures on pronote and receipt in cross-examination--Defendant’s expert has also stated that the pronote and receipt bear signatures of defendant--Plaintiff’s evidence is thus corroborated by defendant’s evidence--Concurrent finding fully justified and confirmed--Appeal dismissed in limine. (Para 8, 9)
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.118--Pronote passing of consideration--Presumption of--There is presumption of payment of consideration for the pronote in view of section 118 of the Act. (Para 9)
(C) Evidence Act, 1872, S.45--Expert opinion--Acceptance of--Expert opined that revenue stamp on pronote has been transplanted from some other document cannot be accepted because part of the signatures of the pronote appears on the revenue stamp and part of signature of defendant appears on the pronote form--Reasonably rules out transplantation of the signed revenue stamp from some other document. (Para 8)
(D) Evidence Act, 1872, S.45--Expert opinion--Revenue stamp--Affixing of--Admissibility--Expert opined that revenue stamp on the receipt has been affixed later on is insignificant--Even receipt without revenue stamp could be admitted in evidence on payment of stamp charges with penalty. (Para 8)
Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral).- CM No.9263-C of 2008
Allowed as prayed for.
CM No.9264-C of 2010
2. Deficiency in Court is said to have been made good. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
Main Appeal
3. Defendant-Krishanpal Singh, having failed in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal.
4. Respondent-plaintiff-Roop Singh filed suit against defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs.44,500/-alleging that the defendant on 20.06.2004 borrowed Rs.40000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 1.25% per month i.e 15% per annum and executed pronote-cum-receipt for the same, but the defendant failed to repay the same. Plaintiff claimed Rs.40000/- as principal amount and Rs.4500/- as interest which comes at the rate of 9% per annum only.
5. The defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations and raised certain preliminary objections.
6. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 25.01.2008 decreed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.40000/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of pronote and receipt till date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 10.06.2008. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed the instant second appeal.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.
8. Plaintiff in order to prove his case has examined Budh Ram PW-1 scribe of the pronote-cum-receipt and Bagga Singh PW-2 attesting witness of the pronote-cum-receipt, besides himself appearing in the witness box as PW-3. All of them have stated according to plaintiff’s version.
9. On the other hand, defendant examined Anil Kumar Gupta DW-1 handwriting expert, who opined that revenue stamp on pronote Ex.P1 has been transplanted from some other document and revenue stamp on receipt ExP2 has been affixed after obtaining the signatures. He has also opined that questioned signatures of defendant on pronote-cum-receipt and standard signatures of defendant are similar in their writing characterstics and have been written by one and the same person. The defendant himself appeared in the witness box as DW-2 and broadly stated according to his version.
10. Plaintiff has led cogent and reliable evidence by examining scribe and one attesting witness of the pronote-cumreceipt. The plaintiff himself also stepped into the witness box. The plaintiff’s evidence is not rebutted by self-serving solitary testimony of defendant himself. The defendant admitted his signatures on pronote and receipt vide his statement dated 15.01.2008 in crossexamination. Defendant’s expert witness has also stated that the disputed signatures of the defendant on pronote and receipt are his signatures. Plaintiff’s evidence is thus corroborated by defendant’s evidence. Defendant has not explained as to how his signatures appeared on pronote and receipt. The defendant has not alleged any dealing between the parties. The defendant rather took a stand of complete denial. However, it is proved not only from plaintiff’s evidence, but also from defendant’s own evidence that pronote and receipt in question bear signatures of the defendant. This circumstance further corroborates the plaintiff’s case. Opinion of Anil Kumar Gupta DW-1 examined by the defendant that revenue stamp on pronote has been transplanted from some other document cannot be accepted because part of the signatures on the pronote appears on the revenue stamp and part of the signatures of defendant appears on the pronote form. It reasonably rules out transplantation of the signed revenue stamp from some other document. Opinion of expert witness that revenue stamp on the receipt has been affixed later on is insignificant because even receipt without revenue stamp could be admitted
