The burden of proof lies on the party alleging fraud.

Avneesh Jhingan, J.

The present regular second appeal is at behest of the defendant being aggrieved of the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Learned Courts below decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,03,300/- plus interest.

2. The parties for the sake of convenience are being referred to as per their status in the original suit.

3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation are that the plaintiff is the Sole Proprietor of M/s Yash Pal Ravinder Nath, Commission Agent, Shop No. 60, Anaj Mandi, Kurukshetra. The defendant was a customer of the plaintiff and there was a farmer and commission agent relationship between them. The defendant being a customer of the plaintiff used to take advance money from the plaintiff. The defendant had three acres of agricultural land and used to cultivate the land on lease also. It was averred that on 8.12.2005, defendant took an advance of Rs.1,19,000/- and acknowledged this amount by signing in English on the said entry in rojnamcha of the plaintiff. The defendant also wrote the said amount in words in Hindi in his own handwriting. On 29.4.2008 another amount of Rs.1000/- was borrowed by the defendant. The plaintiff stated that it was agreed that he would pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum. On request of the plaintiff when the defendant refused to make payment, the suit for recovery was filed claiming recovery of Rs. 2,03,300/- (Rs.1,20,000 (principal amount) and Rs.83,300/- (interest) plus pendente-lite interest, till realization of the amount.

4. On notice the defendant filed the written statement basically raising the issue that the claim is based on fraud and forgery and no amount is payable by the defendant, rather the plaintiff owes money to the defendant. Replication was filed.

5. The trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.2,03,300/- from the defendant along with interest and cost as prayed for on the grounds as mentioned in the plaint? OPP

(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

(3) Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

(4) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts from the Court? OPD

(5) Whether plaintiff is not having money lending licence? OPD

(5A) Whether the plaintiff prepared the alleged accounts in due course of business as per law and whether the alleged accounts of the plaintiff are admissible in law and evidence or not? OPD

(6) Relief.

6. In order to support the suit, the plaintiff produced his muneem PW1 Satbir. The plaintiff himself appeared as PW2. Handwriting expert was produced as PW3. Various documents were exhibited as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. In order to rebut the claim, the defendant himself appeared as DW1. The trial Court, after appreciating the facts and considering the witnesses and evidence produced before it, decided issue No.1 and 5(A) in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.2 to 4 were decided against the defendant. Regarding issue No.5, neither the same was pressed nor any evidence was led and hence this issue was decided against the defendant. The net result was that the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.2014 and the plaintiff was held entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,03,300/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with pendente-lite and future interest.

7. Aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, an appeal was filed. Learned Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 25.1.2016 affirming the judgment and decree of trial Court. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the defendant contended that the lower Courts have erred in decreeing the suit as the defendant had not borrowed any money. The entries in the accounts book were result of forgery and fraud. He further contended that the suit for recovery was not maintainable as the plaintiff was n