IMPORTANT POINT
Testimony of advocate as witness--Value of--One of the two attesting witnesses of the pronotes-cum-receipts in question, an advocate represented the plaintiff in an earlier suit and also represented the plaintiff in the instant suit in the beginning--Merely on this basis, the testimony of Advocate cannot be discarded.

Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) :- C. M. No. 14029-C of 2010 :

Application is allowed and court fee annexed with the application is taken on record.

C. M. No. 10645-C of 2010 :

Applicant-appellant has since paid the requisite court fee on second appeal. Consequently, instant application for permission to file the appeal as indigent person is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

C. M. No. 10646-C of 2010 :

Allowed as prayed for.

C. M. No. 10647-C of 2010 :

For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 106 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

C. M. No. 10648-C of 2010 :

For reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 15 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

C. M. No. 10649-C of 2010 :

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Appeal :

Sushil Kumar – defendant no.2 having failed in both the courts below is in second appeal.

2. Suit was filed by Narender Singh – respondent no.1-plaintiff against appellant and proforma respondents no.2 to 8, who are legal heirs of Ramlal deceased, being his widow, sons and daughters. Plaintiff’s case is that Ramlal borrowed Rs.35,500/- on 11.05.1993 and Rs.26,000/- on 13.05.1993 from the plaintiff and executed four pronotes-cum-receipts and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 1.56% per month. Ramlal has since died. Defendants have inherited his estate being his legal heirs and are liable to pay the loan amount with interest. Accordingly, plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.96,038.40, which included principal amount of Rs.61,500/- and interest amount of Rs.34,538.40 till filing of the suit.

3. Only defendant no.2 contested the suit. He controverted the plaint allegations. Execution of pronotes-cum-receipts in question by Ramlal was denied. It was alleged that Ramlal had not taken any loan. It was also pleaded that defendants are not liable to pay loan taken by Ramlal. It was also alleged that defendants have not inherited property of Ramlal and are, therefore, not liable to pay his debts. Various other pleas were also raised.

4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2002, decreed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by defendant no.2 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.2 has preferred the instant second appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that defendants have not inherited any property from Ramlal. The contention cannot be accepted. It has come in the testimony of appellant himself that he has inherited ancestral property of his father Ramlal. Even otherwise, liability of defendants to pay the decretal amount shall be only to the extent of the estate inherited by them from Ramlal, as has also been observed by the trial court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant next vehemently contended that Ramlal was a gambler and drunkard and the alleged loan was not taken for family needs. This contention is irrelevant because liability of the defendants to pay the debt taken by their predecessor Ramlal is to the extent the estate inherited by defendants from Ramlal (since deceased). Consequently, the question whether the debt was taken for bad habits or for family needs pales into insignificance because Ramlal was liable to repay his debt for whatever purpose he borrowed it and the debt can be recovered from his estate, even if it was not borrowed for family needs.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that execution of pronotes and receipts in question and payment of consideration is not proved. This contention is also devoid of merit because plaintiff himself appeared in the witness-box and has examined both attesting witnesses of the pronotes-cum-receipts in question and also deed writer, who scribed the same. All of them have stated about due execution of pronot