JUDGMENT Mr. Surinder Gupta, J.: - Jaswant Singh-respondent filed suit for recovery of Rs.4,08,000/-, which included Rs.3,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs.1,08,000/-as interest. His claim was based on pronote and receipt dated 18.06.2007. As per the plaintiff-respondent, the defendant who was in need of money took a loan of Rs.3,00,000 and executed pronote and receipt dated 18.06.2007 in his favour. The rate of interest was agreed 3% per month but the plaintiff has claimed the interest @ 1% per month. 2. The appellant denied the taking of loan of Rs.3,00,000 from respondent and execution of pronote and receipt in his favour. The appellant pleaded that he as an agriculturist had dealings with Tarlochan Singh brother of plaintiff-respondent who is running business of commission agent. During transactions with Tarlochan Singh, the appellant became liable to pay him Rs.75,000/- and executed a pronote and receipt of that amount in his favour on 03.07.2004 but the pronote and receipt was got prepared for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- instead of Rs.75,000/-. After three years i.e. in June, 2007 the appellant paid Rs.1,00,000/- to Tarlochan Singh instead of payment of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 3% per month. As the appellant was not in a position to pay the remaining amount with interest, Tarlochan Singh in order to secure payment of remaining amount obtained signature and thumb impression of appellant on blank printed form of pronote and receipt and also compelled the appellant to make endorsement thereon that he had received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. That blank pronote and receipt has later been used by Tarlochan Singh in the name of his brother Jaswant Singh-respondent by fabricating the pronote and receipt dated 03.07.2004. 3. The pleadings of parties lead to the framing of issues as follows: 1. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 2. Whether the defendant took a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt dated 18.06.2007 for consideration thereof ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receover Rs.4,08,000/- from the defendant as detailed, with interest, if so, at what rate ? OPP 4. Relief. 4. In order to prove his case the respondent examined Charan Singh, marginal witness of the receipt as PW-2, Daljit Singh, Deed Writer as PW-3 besides making his own statement. 5. OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receover Rs.4,08,000/- from the defendant as detailed, with interest, if so, at what rate ? OPP 4. Relief. 4. In order to prove his case the respondent examined Charan Singh, marginal witness of the receipt as PW-2, Daljit Singh, Deed Writer as PW-3 besides making his own statement. 5. To counter the evidence of plaintiff-respondent, the defendant himself appeared as DW-1 and examined Navtej Singh as DW-2. The Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sultanpur Lodhi, while deciding the suit vide judgment dated 19.11.2011 discarded the plea taken by the appellant and held that execution of the pronote and receipt is duly proved. The first appellate authority after detailed discussion of the evidence led by the parties observed in para 18 and 19 of the judgment as follows: “18. Then, a bare perusal of this pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2 evinces the fact that the entire body of this pronote and receipt was scribed at one and the same time. There is nothing in it to show that any entry with regard to the amount, names of the parties or date etc. have been entered in the body of this pronote and receipt subsequently. 19. Then, the plea of fraud as alleged by the appellant/defendant has also not been proved on the file, because all the material facts in support of this allegation are neither pleaded nor proved on the record. Herein, the principles of law as laid down in Shanti Budhiya Vesta Patel & Ors. Vs. Nirmala Jayprakash Tiwari & Ors., [2010(3) Law Herald (SC) 1820] : 2010 (2) Civil Court Cases – 579 (S.C) are followed.” 6. In the present regular second appeal the appellant has sought the setting aide of judgment of the Courts below and dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the entire loan transaction of the appellant was with Tarlochan Singh brother of respondent. He neither had any dealing with the respondent nor any reason to take loan from him. It was at the time of settlement of account with Tarlochan Singh that the signatures of appellant on the blank pronote and receipt with the endorsement that he had received Rs.3,00,000/- were obtained which was used by said Tarlochan Singh to fabricate the pronote and receipt in favour of his brother Jaswant Singh. It was at the time of settlement of account with Tarlochan Singh that the signatures of appellant on the blank pronote and receipt with the endorsement that he had received Rs.3,00,000/- were obtained which was used by said Tarlochan Singh to fabricate the pronote and receipt in favour of his brother Jaswant Singh. He has strenuously emphasized that when the appellant had no dealing with Jaswant Singh there existed no reason for Jaswant Singh to advance any loan to the appellant. 8. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant and the plea raised by the appellant prove two facts, firstly, that the pronote and receipt were bearing the signatures of the appellant and secondly the endorsement that ‘the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was received’ is also in the handwriting of appellant. The testimony of DW-2 examined by the appellant has been discarded by the Court below and the observation with regard to the credibility of this witness was recorded in para 12 of the judgment of the First appellate Court which read as follows: “12. DW2 Navtej Singh has tendered in his statement his duly sworn affidavit Ex.DW2/A. It is mentioned in his affidavit that in the month of June, 2007, he was present in Tehsil Complex, Sultanpur Lodhi, where at the seat of one Deed Writer, he saw Tarlochan Singh, brother of the present plaintiff and defendant Paramjit Singh. At that time, defendant Paramjit singh was putting his signature and thumb impression over some blank printed form of pronote and receipt. When, he asked Paramjit singh about this, then, both Paramjit Singh and Tarlochan Singh told him that there was some earlier transaction between them, out of which defendant could repay only a sum of Rs.one lac and due to inability to pay the remaining amount and interest thereon by defendant, Tarlochan singh is now getting the signatures and thumb impressions of Paramjit Singh merely to secure the payment of the balance amount. But, this witness seems to an interested witness, for the reason that he has admitted in his cross-examination that his father Dharam singh had executed an agreement in favour of one Joginder Singh, the brother of the present plaintiff. With regard to this agreement, there initiated some proceedings between them, appeal of which is now pending in the Hon’ble High Court.” 9. With regard to this agreement, there initiated some proceedings between them, appeal of which is now pending in the Hon’ble High Court.” 9. After discarding the statement of DW-2-Navtej Singh the appellant is left with his statement only with regard to the plea raised by him in the written statement. He has also not been able to rebut the presumption attached to a negotiable instrument under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which arises in favour of plaintiff. The entire plea of appellant is that his signatures were obtained at the time of settlement of account with Tarlochan Singh, brother of respondent. His plea is that earlier he had taken loan and executed pronote and receipt in favour of said Tarlochan Singh. That pronote and receipt was also got scribed from the same deed writer, who had scribed the pronote and receipt in question. This shows that appellant was not a novice or a person unaware about the concept and consequences of signing pronote and receipt. The appellant examined the Deed Writer, scribe of the pronote and receipt, who has stated that after signing the pronote and receipt the entry was made in his register which was also signed by appellant. Pleadings as well as statement of appellant have remained totally silent with regard to his signatures in register of Deed Writer. The above facts and circumstances duly prove that appellant had executed pronote and receipt in favour of plaintiff. There is presumption that he had read the pronote and receipt and signed the same after admitting its contents. Here observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in somewhat similar circumstances in case M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr vs M/s. Agarwal Steel reported as 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 932, are relevant for reference, which read as follows: “In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force of fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted.” 10. The case of appellant is that he had written on the pronote about the receipt of Rs.3,00,000/-. The first Appellate Court on perusal of the pronote and receipt has reached the conclusion that entire body of the pronote and receipt was scribed one and the same time. The case of appellant is that he had written on the pronote about the receipt of Rs.3,00,000/-. The first Appellate Court on perusal of the pronote and receipt has reached the conclusion that entire body of the pronote and receipt was scribed one and the same time. This reflects that appellant had made endorsement regarding receipt of Rs.3,00,000/- when the pronote and receipt was executed. 11. On perusal of the paper book, judgment of the Courts below and statements of witness which were made available during the course of arguments by learned counsel for appellant, no substantial question of law requiring determination, arises in this appeal. 12. As a sequel of my above observations I find no merits in this appeal and the same is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————