Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1707 (RAJ)

Govind Prasad v. Narayan Lal

2010-10-05

PREM SHANKER ASOPA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 8.9.1999 passed by District Judge, Karauli in Revision Petition No. 9/1999 and have further prayed to dismiss the application filed by the respondent applicants under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1957') for the determination of the debt and further to hold that the petitioners are not liable for any debt to the respondents. 2. Briefly, stated the relevant facts of the case are that the respondent applicants filed an application under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 before the Debt Relief Court i.e. Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Hindaun City for determination of the debt stating there in that the on 22.4.1989 petitioners took a loan of Rs. 46,000/- at the rate of interest Rs. 2.5/- per hundred per month, in respect of which a pro-note was executed. 3. The petitioners filed reply to the said application and denied execution of the pro-note. They further averred that they are marginal farmers and, therefore, they arc not liable for any debt. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Debt Relief Court framed the following three issues:- " 1- vk;k _.knkrk fdl dnj o fdruh jde olwy ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 2- vk;k xSj lk;yku ekftZuy Qkjej gksus ds dkj.k _.k fofu'p;dj.k izkFkZuk i= fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 3- vuqrks"k\ " 5. The Debt Relief Court after recording evidence of the parties vide judgment dated 24.5.1999 decided all the three issues against the petitioners and accepted the application of the respondent-applicants and determined the debt to the tune of Rs. 57,785/- with the further direction to make the payment of the amount in three quarterly installments of Rs. 5,000/- each and 6% interest per annum was also awarded. 6. Against the said judgment the petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 17 of the Act of 1957 before the District Judge, Karauli. The revisional Court vide order dated 8.9.1999 dismissed the revision petition and up held the order of the Debt Relief Court. However, reduced the rate of interest from 6% per annum to 4% per annum. 7. 6. Against the said judgment the petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 17 of the Act of 1957 before the District Judge, Karauli. The revisional Court vide order dated 8.9.1999 dismissed the revision petition and up held the order of the Debt Relief Court. However, reduced the rate of interest from 6% per annum to 4% per annum. 7. It is slated in the writ petition that the Debt Relief Court as well as the revisional Court have committed error or law in holding that the pro-note was executed without examining the fact that the witness Jamna Lal was not examined and further committed in considering that the petitioners are marginal farmers and the respondent-applicants being money-lenders were under an obligation to produce their' money lending licence. It is further contended that the statement of accounts as required under Section It of the Act of 1957 was also not filed and therefore, both the judgments are liable to be set aside. 8. Respondent applicants have filed their reply wherein it has been averred that in support of the pro-note Narayan Lal AW-1 and Hajari Lal AW-2 were examined. Hajari Lal was also, one of the attesting witnesses, Jamna Lal was the brother of the petitioners whom summons were issued but he did not appear before the Court. Therefore, no adverse inference could have been drawn against them and the pro-note was fully proved. Both the Courts below have given a categorical finding that the petitioners are agriculturists and are not marginal farmers on account of their having agricultural land measuring 1.26 hectare and 0.20 hectare which is evident from the Jamabandies Ex.3 and 4. As regard the money lending licence, the respondent applicants have submitted that they are not money lenders and such objection was not taken in the reply to the application for, determination of the loan. Therefore, they have been deprived from leading evidence on this issue. 9. The submission of Shri S.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the judgments of both the Courts below suffer from error of law as the pronote has wrongly been taken to be proved without examining the attesting witness Jamna Lal, therefore, adverse inference ought to have been drawn, further that the money-lending licence was neither produced nor proved. The submission of Shri S.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the judgments of both the Courts below suffer from error of law as the pronote has wrongly been taken to be proved without examining the attesting witness Jamna Lal, therefore, adverse inference ought to have been drawn, further that the money-lending licence was neither produced nor proved. Counsel further submits that the finding of fact in relation to the marginal farmers is based on no legal evidence. In the alternative, it is prayed that in place of three quarterly installments of Rs. 5000/- each, the petitioners may be permitted to repay the loan amount in two half yearly installments of Rs. 5000/- each. 10. The submission of Shri B.L. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents is that the judgments of both the learned Courts below are in accordance with law as Hajari Lal AW-2 one of the attesting witnesses was examined and the evidence of this witness is further supported by the evidence of Narayan Lal AW-1. Counsel further submits that summons were issued to Jamna Lal but he did not appear, therefore, no adverse inference could have been drawn against the respondent-applicants. As regards submission of the statement of accounts is concerned, counsel for the respondents submits, that the transaction was a single transaction therefore, no statement of accounts was necessary and further the objection regarding money lending licence was not taken before the Debt Relief Court, therefore, no evidence could have been produced to this effect that the respondents are not money-lenders. As regards 'marginal farmers' the trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the Jamabandies Exs. 3 and 4 which categorically go to show the applicant respondents are having agricultural land measuring 1.26 hectare and 0.020 hectare Therefore., the findings of the learned Courts below are based on cogent evidence and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered the rival submissions of the parties. 12. In my view, the pro-note has been proved by Narayan Lal. PW-1 and Hajari Lal PW-2 and the another attesting witness Jamna Lal even after service of the summons did not appear, the trial Court as well as the revisional Court have rightly not drawn the adverse inference. 12. In my view, the pro-note has been proved by Narayan Lal. PW-1 and Hajari Lal PW-2 and the another attesting witness Jamna Lal even after service of the summons did not appear, the trial Court as well as the revisional Court have rightly not drawn the adverse inference. As regards the issue of petitioners being 'marginal farmers' is concerned, Jamabandies Ex.3 and 4 satisfactorily proved that the petitioners are having agricultural land measuring 1.26 hectare and 0.020 hectare. Therefore, both the Courts below have not committed any illegality or error in holding that they are not the marginal farmers, (sic) the issue regarding non-production of the statement of amounts and money ending licence is concerned, there was no such plea before the Courts below and also the action of the respondent applicants is based on pro-note, production of these documents was not necessary In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity in. the judgments of both the Courts below. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is, dismissed. However, in view of the prayer having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to permit them to repay the loan amount in two half-yearly installments of Rs. 5,000/- each instead of three quarterly installments of Rs. 5,000/-, they are permitted to repay the loan amount in two half-yearly installments of Rs. 5,000/- each.Writ Petition dismissed. *******