Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1898 (RAJ)

Ladu Ram v. Sohan Lal @ Sukhdeo Soni

2011-09-05

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal has been preferred by appellant Ladu Ram against respondent Sohan Lal @ Sukhdeo Soni being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2009 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No. 70/2007, by which the learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal of the defendant-appellant Ladu Ram and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 128/2004, whereby the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Sohan Lal for Rs. 4973/- and he further decreed that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the decretal amount from the date of filing of the suit. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent Sohan Lal filed a suit against defendant-appellant Ladu Ram for recovery of money amounting to Rs. 4973/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. In the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. 3. The defendant-appellant filed reply to the suit. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, three issues were framed by the learned trial court. The issue No.1 was regarding the fact whether the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to get Rs. 4973/- which is due out of the total amount of Rs. 26033/- and rest of the amount of Rs. 21060/- has been paid by the defendant-appellant. The issue No.2 was whether the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to get interest at the rate of 24% on the due amount from the defendant-appellant. 4. The plaintiff-respondent Sohan Lal examined himself as P.W.1 and the defendant-appellant Ladu Ram examined himself in rebuttal of the plaintiff as D.W.1. After considering the relevant documents and the evidence on record, the learned trial court decided the issue No.1 against the defendant-appellant and issue No.2 partly in favour of the defendant-appellant. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendant-appellant filed a first appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, from where the same was transferred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur for disposal, who by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal of the defendant-appellant and affirmed the judgment and the decree passed by the trial court. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court erred in relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 Sohan Lal and further relying upon the Ex.1 document and regarding its finding on the issue No.1 that Ex.1 document bears the signature of the present appellant because the appellant as defendant in the suit categorically denied signature on Ex.1 and further the appellant-defendant totally denied the facts of the plaint and the fact of purchasing any ornaments from the shop of the respondent-plaintiff, therefore, this second appeal involves substantial question of law that whether a paper of account book can be considered in evidence when the entire account book was not produced and when the account book has not been referred in the plaint, whether it can be relied upon and also a substantial question of law is involved regarding the fact that whether the findings arrived at by the learned trial court as well as the first appellate court are contrary to law and facts and are perverse. 6. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court. The learned trial court while deciding the issue No.1 relied upon the oral evidence of plaintiff-respondent P.W.1 Sohan Lal and also believed the execution of Ex.1 document which bears the signature of appellant-defendant Ladu Ram, although appellant Ladu Ram in his evidence denied his signature, but he admitted the fact that while getting the salary he used to sign the receipts of the amount, thus, it is an admitted fact that appellant Ladu Ram usually signs the documents. 7. Now coming to the question whether the contents of a single page of the account book can be proved. In this regard the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that contents of paper of the account book have not been proved by the plaintiff-respondent in the evidence. I have perused the statement of P.W.1 Sohan Lal, wherein he deposed that regular account book is being maintained by him regarding the transactions of his shop and he further deposed that Ex.1 is the account in respect of the transactions of the appellant-defendant Ladu Ram and that after paying the sum of Rs. I have perused the statement of P.W.1 Sohan Lal, wherein he deposed that regular account book is being maintained by him regarding the transactions of his shop and he further deposed that Ex.1 is the account in respect of the transactions of the appellant-defendant Ladu Ram and that after paying the sum of Rs. 21060/-, the appellant-defendant executed Ex.1 document and signed the same. The simple denial on the part of appellant Ladu Ram in regard to his signature on Ex.1 cannot be believed and the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court while recording the finding on the issue No.1 relied upon the oral evidence of P.W.1 Sohan Lal as well as the execution of Ex.1 Khata Bahi and in my view, the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court did not err in relying upon the regular account book maintained by the plaintiff in respect of several transactions and it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove the other pages of the Khata Bahi because the relevant document which was required to be proved against the defendant was only Ex.1, which bears the signature of Ladu Ram. Bearing of signature of defendant-appellant Ladu Ram on Ex.1 is a question of fact and there is concurrent finding of the learned trial court as well as the first appellate court in this regard. The second issue is regarding the rate of interest. The learned trial court allowed the interest at the prevailing bank interest rate and thus, in my view the learned trial court did not commit any error in deciding the issue No.2 also. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and only questions of facts are involved and in that regard, the findings arrived at by the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court are affirmed. In the absence of any substantial question of law, the present appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 8. Resultantly this civil second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court as well as the judgment of the learned first appellate court is affirmed. 9. No order as to costs.Second Appeal Dismissed. *******