- (1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal directed against judgment and decree of Sri Rati Ram, learned Civil Judge, Rampur dated 19th March, 1974, in Civil Appeal 127 of 1972 arising out of original suit 526 of 1970 by which learned civil Judge affirmed the judgment and decree of learned Munsif who allowed plaintiff's claim.
(2.) IT appears that plaintiff-respondent Satish Chandra filed a suit against defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs. 2200/- with the allegations that defendant-appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1285/- from plaintiff on 1-10-1967 and executed a pronote and receipt in his favour as a collateral security. The amount carried interest at the rate of Rs. 2% per month and was payable On demand. Nothing was paid despite demands; hence the suit. Defendant contested the suit on the pleas that he had never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. The pronote and receipt were without consideration. The defendant had partnership business with one Shyam Behari Lal Jain who is father-in-law of plaintiff. Defendant had taken some money ' time to time from Shyam Behari Lal Jain which was to be adjusted against the partnership accounts. Shyam Behari Lal Jain had obtained this pronote and receipt for the consideration of money he had advanced. The pronote and receipt were benami and, therefore, the plaintiff had no right to sue. The pronote in suit was void for being materially altered. Learned Munsif allowed the claim and the learned lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal with costs as given above. Aggrieved by the decision, defendant has filed this appeal.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the record. On behalf of appellant, it was pointed out that according to the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the advance was made simultaneously with the execution of the pronote and receipt and the loan was advanced by the plaintiff on the basis of pronote executed by the defendant.;