High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Iftekhar Hussain v. Sardar Gayn Singh & Another - SECOND APPEAL No. 1677 of 1975  RD-AH 17917 (18 October 2006)
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.