The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence establishing the execution of a promissory note, proof of consideration, and the effect of unexplained material alterations under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

HARBANS LAL, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/ decree dated 28.9.2004 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kapurthala whereby he accepted the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs.79,980/-with pendente lite interest at the rate of Rs.12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until the decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of the decree until realisation of the amount on the principal amount with the further observations that the respondents shall also be liable to pay the decretal amount to the extent, they have inherited the property of Dilbagh Singh, their predecessor-in-interest by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 1.4.2003 rendered by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara whereby she dismissed the suit with costs.

2. The facts which form the backdrop of the suit are that Dilbagh Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants obtained a sum of Rs.62,000/-as loan from the plaintiff on 9.11.1998 and in consideration thereof, executed the pronote and receipt of even date in his favour with the promise to repay the same on demand together with interest at the rate of Rs.4% per mensem. The former did not repay even a single penny either towards principal or interest. He breathed his last and is survived by his legal representatives-defendants, who were requested number of times to make the payments of the above-mentioned amount together with interest, but in vain. On these allegations, this suit has been filed for the recovery of Rs.62,000/-being principal amount along with interest amounting to Rs.17,980/-together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In answer to this claim, the defendants repudiated the alleged execution of the promissory note as well as receipt of Rs.62,000/-by Dilbagh Singh-deceased. It has been alleged that the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents and are without consideration. Traversing other facts in the plaint, it has been prayed that the suit may be dismissed with costs.

The following issues were framed:-

1. Whether defendant had executed the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff on 9.11.1998? OPP

2. If Issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery, if so, at what rate of interest? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

5. Relief.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the plaintiff went up in appeal which was accepted by the learned First Appellate Court in the terms as noted supra. Being dissatisfied therewith, the defendants have preferred this appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record as well as the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection.

5. Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate on behalf of the appellants eloquently urged that indeed the learned Lower Appellate Court only on the basis of evidence of the scribe Sanjiv Kumar, PW1 has held that the pronote Ex.P.1 and receipt Ex.P.2 were executed by Dilbagh Singh, deceased in favour of the plaintiff, though, this witness under the stress of cross-examination blurted out that he does not know either Tarlok Singh plaintiff or Dilbagh Singh nor can he recognise them. Thus, the question of aforementioned witness proving the due execution of the disputed pronote and receipt does not arise. He further argued that the aforesaid witness in his examination-in-chief has testified that Gurditta Ram, the attesting witness cannot walk, although Gurditta Ram has appeared and tendered evidence as DW1. The learned Lower Appellate Court also failed to consider that Ranjit Singh, PW2 was neither authorised nor had any personal knowledge about the transaction. More importantly, it