Jagat Ram Vs. Hawa Singh
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4887 of 1992
Petitioner: Jagat Ram
Respondent: Hawa Singh
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4887 of 1992
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 01, 2001
Head Note:
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS/LOANS
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 118 – Presumption under – Entry in Bahi – Defendant admitting signatures – Bare denial of fact of obtaining money in drunken state. Held that such a bare denial is not sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 118. High Court’s and First Appellate Court’s orders set aside and that of lower court, decreeing suit, restored (JT 1999 (1) SC 576) referred and relied upon.
Held:
The respondent has acknowledged receipt of the sum of Rs. 15,000/- as loan with interest at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per month and with the further stipulation that the amount shall be re-turned by 1st January, 1986. The finding of the First Appellate Court that in the entry the past transactions between the parties amounting to Rs. 15,000/- to be paid by the respondent which does not show passing of consideration on the date of the entry is clearly based on a misreading and misconstruction of the entry. The respondent as noted earlier admitted his signature on the account book. He made a bare denial of receipt of the amount on the plea that he might have been in a drunken state at the time of making the entry. Such a bare denial in the circumstances of the case is not sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (Para 11)
Cases Reffered:
1. Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal (JT (1999) 1 SC 576) (Para 11)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The plaintiff has filed this appeal assailing the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 14 August, 1991 summarily dismissing the second appeal RSA No. 986 of 1991 by passing a cryptic order “no merit, dismissed.”
2. The appellant filed the suit for realisation of Rs. 15,000/- with interest from the respondent on the allegations, inter alia, that on 3rd July, 1985 he had advanced the said sum as loan to the defendant with interest at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per month with the stipulation that the amount will be repaid by January, 1986. As a token of receipt of the amount the entry signed by the defendant was made in the account book maintained by the appell-ant (Bahi Entry). Since the respondent failed to repay the amount within the stipulated period the plaintiff sent a notice to him on 2nd June, 1988. Still there was no response from the defend-ant. Thereafter the suit was filed on 16 July, 1988.
3. The case pleaded by the defendant was that he had put his signature on the document (Bahi Entry) when he was in an inebri-ated state. In fact, he did not receive the sum of Rs. 15,000/- on the date as alleged by the plaintiff. He also pleaded that he had some previous transactions of loan with the plaintiff which he had repaid.
4. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and another witness to the entry in the account book as PW2. The entry in the account book was marked as Ext. P1.
5. The defendant examined himself as DW1.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court formulated the relevant issue as: “Whether the defendant on 3.7.1985, took loan of Rs. 15,000/- and executed a valid Bahi writing on this behalf ?” On appreciation of the evidence on record, the court answered the issue in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit.
7. On appeal by the defendant the First Appellate Court, taking a different view reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court held inter alia that the entry in the account book maintained by the plaintiff did not prove that the sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid to the defendant on 3rd July, 1985. The entry as held by the court, only showed that the accumulated dues of the defendant amounted to Rs. 15,000/-. On the said finding the court accepted the case of the defendant that there was no passing of consideration in support of the Bahi Entry made on 3rd July, 1985.
8. The second appeal filed by the appellant was summarily dis-missed by the High Court as noted above.
9. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that since the defendant has admitted his signa-ture on the Bahi Entry the presumption is that the entry was supported by passing of consideration. He placed reliance on Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in support of his contention. The learned Counsel further contended that in the absence of any material produced by the defendant the First Appellate Court erred in interfering with the judgment of the trial court.
10. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that since the First Appellate Court which is the final court of fact accepted the case of the respondent that the sum of Rs. 15,000/- was not paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on the date on which the Bahi Entry was made the High Court rightly dismissed the second appeal.
11. We have perused the judgment of the First Appellate Court in Para 10 whereof the entry in the account book “Bahi Entry” is quoted verbatim. On the plain reading of the said entry it is clear to us that the respondent has acknowledged receipt of the sum of Rs. 15,000/- as loan with interest at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per month and with the further stipulation that the amount shall be returned by 1st January, 1986. The finding of the First Ap-pellate Court that in the entry the past transactions between the parties amounting to Rs. 15.000/- to be paid by the respondent which does not show passing of consideration on the date of the entry is clearly based on a misreading and misconstruction of the entry. The respondent as noted earlier admitted his signature on the account book. He made a bare denial of receipt of the amount on the plea that he might have been in a drunken state at the time of making the entry. Such a bare denial in the circumstances of the case is not sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This posi-tion was accepted by this Court in the case of Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal (JT (1999) 1 SC 576).
12. On the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the First Appellate Court and the order passed by the High Court dismissing the second appeal are set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court are restored. Parties will bear their respective costs.
1. The plaintiff has filed this appeal assailing the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 14 August, 1991 summarily dismissing the second appeal RSA No. 986 of 1991 by passing a cryptic order “no merit, dismissed.”
2. The appellant filed the suit for realisation of Rs. 15,000/- with interest from the respondent on the allegations, inter alia, that on 3rd July, 1985 he had advanced the said sum as loan to the defendant with interest at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per month with the stipulation that the amount will be repaid by January, 1986. As a token of receipt of the amount the entry signed by the defendant was made in the account book maintained by the appell-ant (Bahi Entry). Since the respondent failed to repay the amount within the stipulated period the plaintiff sent a notice to him on 2nd June, 1988. Still there was no response from the defend-ant. Thereafter the suit was filed on 16 July, 1988.
3. The case pleaded by the defendant was that he had put his signature on the document (Bahi Entry) when he was in an inebri-ated state. In fact, he did not receive the sum of Rs. 15,000/- on the date as alleged by the plaintiff. He also pleaded that he had some previous transactions of loan with the plaintiff which he had repaid.
4. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and another witness to the entry in the account book as PW2. The entry in the account book was marked as Ext. P1.
5. The defendant examined himself as DW1.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court formulated the relevant issue as: “Whether the defendant on 3.7.1985, took loan of Rs. 15,000/- and executed a valid Bahi writing on this behalf ?” On appreciation of the evidence on record, the court answered the issue in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit.
7. On appeal by the defendant the First Appellate Court, taking a different view reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court held inter alia that the entry in the account book maintained by the plaintiff did not prove that the sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid to the defendant on 3rd July, 1985. The entry as held by the court, only showed that the accumulated dues of the defendant amounted to Rs. 15,000/-. On the said finding the court accepted the case of the defendant that there was no passing of consideration in support of the Bahi Entry made on 3rd July, 1985.
8. The second appeal filed by the appellant was summarily dis-missed by the High Court as noted above.
9. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that since the defendant has admitted his signa-ture on the Bahi Entry the presumption is that the entry was supported by passing of consideration. He placed reliance on Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in support of his contention. The learned Counsel further contended that in the absence of any material produced by the defendant the First Appellate Court erred in interfering with the judgment of the trial court.
10. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that since the First Appellate Court which is the final court of fact accepted the case of the respondent that the sum of Rs. 15,000/- was not paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on the date on which the Bahi Entry was made the High Court rightly dismissed the second appeal.
11. We have perused the judgment of the First Appellate Court in Para 10 whereof the entry in the account book “Bahi Entry” is quoted verbatim. On the plain reading of the said entry it is clear to us that the respondent has acknowledged receipt of the sum of Rs. 15,000/- as loan with interest at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per month and with the further stipulation that the amount shall be returned by 1st January, 1986. The finding of the First Ap-pellate Court that in the entry the past transactions between the parties amounting to Rs. 15.000/- to be paid by the respondent which does not show passing of consideration on the date of the entry is clearly based on a misreading and misconstruction of the entry. The respondent as noted earlier admitted his signature on the account book. He made a bare denial of receipt of the amount on the plea that he might have been in a drunken state at the time of making the entry. Such a bare denial in the circumstances of the case is not sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This posi-tion was accepted by this Court in the case of Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal (JT (1999) 1 SC 576).
12. On the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the First Appellate Court and the order passed by the High Court dismissing the second appeal are set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court are restored. Parties will bear their respective costs.
