IMPORTANT POINT
Perversity of Judgment of trial court is a sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC by a First Appellate Court.

JUDGMENT

By the Court:—Heard the parties.

2. This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2007 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Garhwa in Title Appeal No.13 of 2006 whereby and where under by the judgment of reversal, the learned First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Garhwa in Title Suit No.03 of 2001 by which the learned Munsif, Garhwa dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on contest.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff took Rs.23,000/- from the defendant on 24.06.1998 with a promise to return the money by 15.07.1998. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff returned some money to the defendant and when the question for returning the remaining money arose, the defendant adjusted the money paid by the plaintiff to him towards the interest and again demanded Rs.23,000/- to settle the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. In this respect, Panches were nominated and the parties became ready to refer the matter before Panches. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 13.09.1998, the Panches for both the parties decided that the plaintiff will pay Rs.15,000/- to the defendant by 05.10.1998 in full and final settlement of the money taken by him. The said decision of the Panches was jointly accepted by both the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff, as per the said decision, gave Rs.15,000/- to the defendant on 05.10.1998 before the Panches and the defendant acknowledged in writing the receipt of Rs.15,000/-. The defendant, with malafide intention filed Money Suit No.01 of 1998 in the Court of Munsif, Garhwa by claiming that he has received only Rs.15,000/- and filed the said money suit for remaining Rs.8,000/- by deliberate intention and by committing fraud and by suppressing the fact that there was a Panchayati regarding the decision in the Panchayati, the payment of Rs.15,000/- in full and final settlement of amount between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant also suppressed the fact that he does not have any licence for money lending without which he cannot file a suit for recovery of money lent by him. After the decree in the said Money Suit No.01 of 1998, the defendant filed Execution Case No.02/1999 and only then the plaintiff came to know that the defendant has obtained a money decree of Rs.8,000+ Rs.1,224/- against him which money the defendant was not entitled to get in view of the decision in the Panchayati and in this way by committing fraud, the defendant obtained the decree in Money Suit No.01 of 1998 from the court of Munsif, Garhwa. The plaintiff filed the suit with a prayer to declare the said decree passed in Money Suit No.01 of 1998 null and void having been obtained by fraud.

4. In his written statement, the defendant besides challenging the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds denied that the plaintiff and the defendant ever nominated any Panch nor ever any Panchayati was held and the defendant never demanded any interest over the money of Rs.23,000/- given by him to the plaintiff. The defendant further pleaded that as the plaintiff did not return money taken by him, hence, he sent a notice through his advocate on 30.08.1998 and the plaintiff received the said notice on 05.10.1998. At a distance of Kilometre from the house of both the parties; by pressurizing the defendant of which his men, the plaintiff got prepared wrong documents in which it was mentioned that the defendant has received Rs.15,000/- and he has no arrear amount due and payable to him from the plaintiff and against the wish of the defendant, the defendant was made to sign the said document. After the said occurrence, the defendant issued notice through his advocate to the plaintiff intimating the plaintiff that the defendant was forcibly and under duress was made to sign on wrong document and to pay the remaining amou