Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1463 (RAJ)

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DALIPA RAM v. SOHAN SINGH

2017-07-04

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the judgment dated 06.03.2000 passed by District Judge, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Civil Revision No.30/98, whereby the revisional court has partly accepted the revision petition filed by the original petitioner Dalipa Ram, who has now died and is being represented through his legal representative. 2. The above mentioned revision was filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the judgment dated 14.07.1998 passed by the Debt Relief Court and Civil Judge (SD) Raisinghnagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in D.R.C. No.38/89, whereby the trial court while accepting the application filed on behalf of respondent - Sohan Singh under section 6(2) of Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act of 1957' hereinafter) directed the petitioner to repay the debt amount of Rs.18528/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum amounting to Rs.5003/-, total Rs.23531/- in two annual instalments. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the judgments passed by the revisional court as well as the trial court while arguing that though both the courts below have given a specific finding that there is overwriting in the Pronote (Ex.1) and the Receipt (Ex.2) but held that the said overwriting will not effect the claim of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings of this effect arrived at by both the courts below are illegal because once it is proved that if an alternation is made in the material part of the document after its execution without the consent of the party liable under it, the said document is rendered void. 4. It is also submitted that the respondent No.1 has failed to prove before the courts below that the overwriting on the Pronote and the Receipt was done with the consent of the petitioner or the said overwriting was in the knowledge of him and from this fact alone, it is clear that the Pronote, on the basis of which claim was filed by the respondent, was void and the petitioner had no liability to pay any amount under the said document. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Loonkaran Sethia v. Ivan E. John & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 336 . 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the courts below have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgments as the respondent No.1 has proved before the court that on 03.10.1986, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.18528/- from him and executed a Pronote (Ex.1) as well as the Receipt (Ex.2), which were proved him by producing AW.2 Paramjeet Singh son of Jaswant Singh and AW.3 Balvindra Singh son of Balwant Singh. It is further argued that the cuttings in the dates of Pronote and Receipt have sufficiently been explained by AW.3 Balvindra Singh and the trial court as well as the revisional court after taking into consideration the said piece of evidence have rightly held that the alleged cuttings in the date of the execution of the Pronote and the Receipt is not fatal because the same was bona fide. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that the concurrent findings of both the courts below are not liable to be interfered with by this Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has, therefore, prayed that there is no force in this writ petition and the same may be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Respondent-Sohan Singh filed an application under section 6(2) of the Act of 1957 while contending that on 03.10.1986 he advanced a loan of Rs.18528/- to the petitioner and in lieu thereof, he executed a Pronote as well as a Receipt Ex.1 and Ex.2 respectively. The said Pronote contains thumb impression of the petitioner and was also signed by two witnesses viz. Durga Dass and Jaswant Singh. The Pronote and Receipt were written by Arji Navis - Balvindra Singh. He has alleged that the loan advanced by him to the petitioner has not been paid by him. 10. To prove the Pronote, respondent produced Paramjeet Singh son of Jaswant Singh as Jaswant Singh has died. Durga Dass and Jaswant Singh. The Pronote and Receipt were written by Arji Navis - Balvindra Singh. He has alleged that the loan advanced by him to the petitioner has not been paid by him. 10. To prove the Pronote, respondent produced Paramjeet Singh son of Jaswant Singh as Jaswant Singh has died. Paramjeet Singh - AW.2 has stated before the trial court that petitioner Dalipa Ram approached his father for the purpose of borrowing a loan from respondent No.1 and his father accompanied him at the time of taking loan. He has stated that when the petitioner asked his father to accompany him for the purpose of taking loan, he was present there and he heard the conversation between them. AW.2 Paramjeet Singh has also verified the signature of his father on the Receipt (Ex.2). 11. AW.3 Balvindra Singh had written the Pronote and the Receipt, said to have been executed by the petitioner. He has stated that petitioner - Dalipa Ram had approached him and asked to execute the Pronote for the purpose of taking loan from the respondent No.1. In his chief examination, he has stated that initially the date of execution on the Pronote and the Receipt was wrongly mentioned as "10-3" and he had corrected it as "3-10". AW.3 Balvindra Singh has also produced the Register (Ex.3), wherein the entry regarding the Pronote has been made. 12. Before the trial court, the petitioner has denied the execution of the Pronote as well as the Receipt and also denied his thumb impression on them. In reply to the application under section 6(2) of the Act of 1957, the petitioner has claimed that the Pronote and the Receipt are forged one. It is also alleged that there is overwriting on the Pronote and Receipt and the same has been done with intent to bring the claim of the respondent within limitation. In the additional pleas the petitioner has claimed that as a matter of fact he had given his 18 bighas of agricultural land to the respondent on rent and when he asked for the rent amount, this false case has been filed against him. In support of his reply, he has examined as NAW.1. 13. The trial court has taken into consideration the objection of the petitioner regarding overwriting of the dates in the Pronote and the Receipt Ex.1 and Ex.2 respectively. In support of his reply, he has examined as NAW.1. 13. The trial court has taken into consideration the objection of the petitioner regarding overwriting of the dates in the Pronote and the Receipt Ex.1 and Ex.2 respectively. The trial court while placing reliance on the statement of AW.3 Balvindra Singh and after taking into consideration the Register (Ex.3) produced by AW.3 Balvindra Singh has given a finding that though there is overwriting in the date of execution of the Pronote and the Receipt but AW.3 has sufficiently explained the situation in which the said overwriting was done. The trial court has found the explanation of AW.3 Balvindra Singh as satisfactory while observing that it appears that initially some wrong date was mentioned on the Pronote and the Receipt, however, later on the same was rectified by AW.3. The trial court has also taken into consideration the fact that in the Register (Ex.3), there is entry regarding the execution of Pronote on 3-10-86. As a matter of fact the trial court has examined the Register (Ex.3) on various occasions and gave specific finding that the entries in the Register does not seem to be forged one. 14. The trial court has also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner has taken a plea that he has given his agricultural land on rent to the respondent and when he has demanded the rent amount from him, he has filed this case. The trial court has opined that in support of the above plea, the petitioner has not produced any evidence to prove that he has given his agricultural land on rent to the respondent 9 years ago. The trial court was also of the opinion that it is unbelievable that for 9 years, the respondent did not give any rent amount to the petitioner and he did not make any effort to recover the same. The trial court has also taken into consideration the fact that though in his reply, the petitioner has claimed that there is overwriting in the Pronote as well as the Receipt but in his statement he has not uttered a single word regarding the alleged overwriting and, therefore, he has failed to produce any evidence to prove that the over-writings in the dates of execution of Pronote and receipts were made to bring the claim of the respondent within limitation. 15. 15. After carefully scrutinizing the record, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court as well as the revisional court have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgments and the findings arrived at by both the courts below cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. 16. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Loonkaran Sethia v. Ivan E. John & Ors. (supra) on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance is of no help to the petitioner because the petitioner has failed to prove that there was any material alternation in the Pronote as well as in the Receipt Ex.1 and Ex.2 respectively. 17. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.