The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the circumstances under which signatures on a pronote and receipt were obtained, as well as the significance of evidence regarding loan transactions in recovery suits.

JUDGMENT

Surinder Gupta, J. - Defendant-Gurmeet Masih has filed this regular second appeal against concurrent judgments of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla and Additional District Judge, Sangrur, decreeing the suit of plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 53,525/- as principal with interest @ 2% from 01.07.2004 to 01.07.2007 and future interest @ 6% from the date of decision till actual realization.

2. In later part of the judgment parties will be referred as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' as per civil suit.

FACTS:-

3. The case of plaintiff, in brief, is that defendant-Gurmeet Masih took loan of Rs. 53,525/-from plaintiff-Kuldeep Singh on 01.07.2004 and executed a pronote and receipt in his favour, which was scribed by Sohan Singh son of Dhani Ram. After executing the pronote and receipt, the same were handed over to plaintiff. The defendant-appellant failed to repay the loan amount or the interest and a sum of Rs. 92,050/- including interest was outstanding at the time of filing of the suit, which he did not pay.

4. In written statement defendant contested claim of plaintiff with averment as follows:-

"1..........The real state of affairs is that the defendant had cordial relation with Kartar Singh father of the plaintiff and defendant is a poor person. He to fetch up his domestic needs on dated 20.03.2000 borrowed a sum of Rs. 1500/- from Kartar Singh father of plaintiff and on same day the defendant also borrowed a sum of Rs. 1000/- from Kartar Singh father of the plaintiff, and on dated 29.05.2000, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and on dated 20.11.2000 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5000/- from Kartar Singh the father of the plaintiff. Thus the defendant borrowed a total sum of Rs. 37,500/- from Kartar Singh father of the plaintiff. When the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5000/- lastly on dated 20.11.2000 then Kartar Singh father of the plaintiff pressurized the defendant to execute some blank documents as security of loan amount in his favour. Then father of the plaintiff got signatures on blank pronote and receipt pronote of the defendant in presence of Dildar Masih son of Nazir Masih of village Chhokran and Davinder Singh son of Ujjagar Signh of village Drogewal and he further insured (sic assured) that when the defendant would settle all the accounts then he will return the original pronote and receipt to the defendant. The defendant is a poor and unemployed person. The defendant returned a sum of Rs. 9000/- on 20.09.2000 and also returned an amount of Rs. 13,500/- on dated 20.09.2002. After this the defendant took the loan of Rs. 30,000/- on 16.10.2003 from The Khanpur Co-op. Central Bank Khanpur tehsil Malkerkotla and the father of the plaintiff namely Kartar Singh and Sher Singh sarpanch of village Chhokran gave the guarantee of the defendant in above said bank and defendant get the loan of Rs. 30,000/- from bank and he handed over Rs. 28700/- on same day to Kartar Singh father of the plaintiff as return of the loan amount of Kartar Singh, the defendant also returned an amount of Rs. 30,000/- on dated 10.8.2005 and returned Rs. 18000/- on dated 18.01.2006 to Kartar Singh father of the plaintiff. As such the defendant returned a total sum of Rs. 99,200/- as total loan amount with interest to Kartar Singh father of the plaintiff. That on 26.01.2006 the defendant in presence of some respectable persons made the request to Kartar Singh father of the plaintiff to return the original blank pronote and receipt pronote but Kartar Singh told that blank pronote and receipt pronote is untraceable and why are you worry and you have returned the all amount of my loan with interest and I shall execute the receipt of return of loan amount to the defendant. Then on dated 27.01.2006 a writing as compromise was written as the instance of Kartar Singh and defendant in presence of respectables and plaintiff