Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Iftekhar Hussain v. Sardar Gayn Singh & Another - SECOND APPEAL No. 1677 of 1975 [2006] RD-AH 17917 (18 October 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 30.

Second Appeal No. 1677 of 1975.

Shri Iftekhar  Hussain                ...                       Appellant


Sardar Gyan Singh ( since deceased)

Substituted by 1/1 Rajindar Singh

and others.                                    ...                      Respondents.

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard Sri M. Islam for the appellant.

The second appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 22.7.1975 in O.S. No. 8 of 1975  for recovery of Rs. 3300/-  on the basis of an endorsed pronote.  The suit was dismissed. The civil appeal No. 8 of 1975 was allowed by IVth Additional District Judge, Pilibhit on 10.9.1975, and the suit was decreed.

The trial court recorded findings that  the defendant no. 1 had signed on blank papers .  He had, in fact, taken loan from the plaintiff .  The plaintiff, on his turn, prepared a pronote in favour of the defendant no. 2 which was then endorsed to him.  The  non production of account books was taken to be a strong circumstance to deny the relief on the basis of promissory note endorsed without the knowledge of the defendant no. 1.

The appellate court disagreed with the findings and relied upon the oral evidence of Sri Gyan Singh P.W.1. Sri Jaimal Singh, PW 2 and found that defendant no. 1 Iftikhar Hussain was not an illiterate person.   He had  knowledge of Urdu language.  The pronote was filled by Gyan Singh and was signed by Iftikhar Hussain.  The defence of taking loan from the plaintiff was not believed. The appellate court also found  that the pronote was endorsed in favour of plaintiff, with a lessor amount.  The plaintiff explained the non-production of account


books by stating that  he does not maintain account books.  The appellate court found that the pronote  was endorsed by defendant no. 2 to plaintiff- the holder in due course.

Sri M.Islam submits that the finding recorded by the  trial court  that the pronote was benami and that, in fact, the loan was taken from the plaintiff,  had not been set aside by the appellate court. He further submits that all the circumstances, including, the fact, that the plaintiff was a money lender and did not choose to file the accounts, went against the plaintiff.  

The appellate court reassessed the evidence, and found that Iftikhar Husain had signed the pronote and receipt which was endorsed by the defendant no. 2 in favour of the plaintiff.  The defendant no. 1 had taken the loan and had not discharge the liability.  These findings are findings of fact arrived at by the appellate court on appreciation of admissible evidence.  The plaintiff was the holder of pronote in due course was entitled to recover the amount, which need no interference in second appeal.

The second appeal is dismissed with costs.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.