Ram Singh (S) v. Krishan Chand And Another (S)

Surinder Gupta, J.:— Appellant-Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree for recovery of Rs. 1,73,600/- (Rs. 1,50,000/- as principal amount and Rs. 23,600/- as interest @ 2% per month w.e.f 08.06.2001 to 04.06.2004) on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 08.06.2001 executed by respondent-defendant No. 1 and writing dated 31.10.2001 executed by respondent-defendant No. 2. Suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed and the appeal filed by him also met the same fate.

2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that defendant No. 1 took loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- and executed pronote and receipt dated 08.06.2001 in his favour. On 31.10.2001, defendant No. 2, who is son of defendant No. 1 took a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from plaintiff and executed a receipt on the back of pronote dated 08.06.2001 The principal amount and the interest were not repaid by the defendants despite repeated requests, resulting in filing of the suit by the plaintiff.

3. In their written statement, defendants denied advancement of loan and pleaded that on 08.06.2001, plaintiff had taken 4½ acres of land of defendants on lease w.e.f 01.06.2001 to 31.05.2002 for a sum of Rs. 47,450/-. He got thumb impressions of defendant No. 1 on many papers. After completion of lease period, he did not vacate the land and the lease was extended from May, 2002 to May, 2003. In May, 2003, a dispute arose and Panchayat was convened. Plaintiff received Rs. 79,180/- and admitted that transaction through pronote has been fully settled. An agreement was reduced into writing, which was signed by the plaintiff. A dispute regarding sum of Rs. 50,000/- was kept pending which was also settled in the Panchayat held on 23.05.2003

4. While the plaintiff proved the pronote and receipt (Ex.P1) and lease agreement (Ex.P2), the defendants produced on record writing (Ex.D1) scribed on 13.05.2003, whereby entire accounts between the plaintiff and defendants were settled and it was specifically mentioned in agreement (Ex.D1) that nothing regarding the pronote in possession of the plaintiff remained due. At the time of agreement, Rs. 79,180/- was paid to the plaintiff.

5. The appellant admitted writing (Ex.D1) and receipt of Rs. 79,180/- by him. The Courts below relied on this writing and concluded that as per this writing, transaction through pronote (Ex.D1) was fully settled/satisfied. Learned first Appellate Court also affirmed the observations of learned Civil Judge in this regard and observed in para 20 of the judgment as follows:—

“20. Above all it is also proved that whatever dispute was there between the parties, ultimately the same was settled. In this regard, it is admitted case of the plaintiff that on 13.05.2003, the dispute was compromised between the parties and as per the compromise Ex.D-1, he received a sum of Rs. 83,000/- which includes some outstanding amount of electricity bills etc. if it is so, no further evidence is required to prove that whatever dispute there was between the parties, the same was compromised as per Ex.D-1, wherein it was specifically mentioned that after adjusting the lease amount due to the defendants, they have paid a sum of Rs. 79180/- to the appellant plaintiff in full and final settlement of all the outstanding claim of the plaintiff and the pronote Ex.P-1 stands cancelled and agreement is duly signed by the appellant-plaintiff alongwith receipt of amount mentioned and is duly proved on record.”

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that though the appellant has not denied the agreement Ex.D1 but vide this agreement, entire dispute was not settled as the dispute regarding Rs. 50,000/- remained pending which was never settled.

7. Defendants in their written statement have specifically averred that dispute regarding Rs. 50,000/- was settled on 23.05.2003 by calling a Panchayat and this plea of the defendants has not been rebutted. Even otherwise, case of the appellant is not based on any claim on the basis of writing Ex.D1 and in regular second appeal, no new case can be allowed to be set up. This fact that the land of the defendant was given on lease to the plaintiff is also not denied. In case, defendants had not settled the transaction of pronote Ex.P1, there was no reason for them to get it scribed through writing Ex.D1 that the same stands settled.

8. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent judgments discarding the case of the appellant-plaintiff. I find no legal or factual infirmity therein calling for any interference in this regular second appeal, which has no merits.

9. Dismissed.