The burden of proof regarding the execution of a loan agreement shifts when the defendant admits to the signature, reducing the plaintiff's requirement to prove the contents.

JUDGMENT

The defendant challenges the judgment and decree granted to the respondent/plaintiff in a suit for realisation of an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest.

2. The respondent/plaintiff contended that the appellant had borrowed from him an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on 02.06.1999 agreeing to repay in one year, with 12% interest. It is pleaded that the defendant had also executed an agreement on the same day, and as the defendant did not repay the amount or the interest, the suit was filed for the realisation of the amount stated above.

3. The defendant filed a written statement disputing the receipt of any money from the plaintiff and denying the execution of the agreement. It was his specific case that the suit was filed by creating a fraudulent document, and that the plaintiff is someone who lends money at interest.

4. Initially, the suit was decreed on 31.07.2007, against which the appellant herein had filed RFA No. 583 of 2007 before this Court. One of the arguments raised before this Court then was Ext.A1, the agreement in question was inadmissible in evidence and the due execution of Ext.A1 was not proved. This Court found that no such objection was raised at the relevant time, and the question of insufficiency of stamp duty regarding Ext.A1 document was no longer available for consideration. However, it was held that the question of execution or evidentiary value of Ext.A1 should be established regardless of the question of admissibility in evidence either under Section 36 of the Stamp Act or otherwise on account of the deficiency of stamp duty.

5. Accordingly, the matter was remanded through a judgment dated 19.07.2022 for fresh consideration, directing the trial court to explore the possibility of settlement in the matter.

6. After remand, though the case was referred for mediation, the dispute could not be settled. No further evidence was adduced by the parties after remand. The trial court considered the evidence of PW1 and PW2 on the side of the plaintiff and Exts.A1 to A3. DW1 was examined on the side of the defendant, and Ext.B1 was also marked.

7. PW1 had deposed in terms of the plaint averments. In cross-examination, nothing was brought out to discredit his testimony. The trial court, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, found that Ext.A1 can be treated as evidence in support of the original transaction.

8. It was also found that the stamp paper used for making the agreement was one purchased by the defendant. The evidence of PW2, a witness on the side of the plaintiff, was also considered. Thus, considering the evidence of PW1 and PW2, which was corroborated by the execution of Ext.A1, the trial court found that the case put forward by the plaintiff is probable and believable. It also considered the fact that the defendant had initially disputed the signature in Ext.A1 agreement, but the same was later admitted when he filed the proof affidavit.

9. Relying on the judgment in Velayudhan v. Velayudhan [2001 (1) KLT 392] and also on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and another [(2003) 8 SCC 745] , due execution and the original transaction was held as proved and the trial court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 03.06.1999 till the date of the decree and 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. It is challenging the above; the appeal is