- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the appellate Court by which the plaintiff's suit of Rs. 4760/- has been decreed with costs of both the Courts.
(2.) Moti Ram, plaintiff, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 4760/- on the basis of pronote Exhibit P-1 dated 7.7.1973. It was averred in the plaint that on 7.7.1973 the appellant took a loan of Rs. 3500/- from him and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1% per mensem. In token of acceptance of loan amount, receipt Exhibit P-2 was also executed by the appellant. The suit was contested by the appellant denying the execution of the pronote. It was also averred in the written statement that no consideration in lieu of pronote had passed. On the basis of rival contentions of the parties, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the defendant executed the pronote in favour of the plaintiff ? OPP (2) If issue No. 1 is proved whether the pronote is without consideration ? OPD (3) Whether the pronote was got executed by fraud and misrepresentation as alleged in the written statement ? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff is money-lender ? If so, to what effect ? (5) Whether the defendant is a landless debtor and the amount in question stands discharged ? OPD (6) Whether the suit is not within time ? OPD (7) Relief. The trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-appellant barring issue No. 5 under which it was held that the defendant was a landless debtor, and, therefore, the amount in question stood discharged. On the other issues, it was found by the trial Court that the defendant-appellant did execute pronote in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It was found under issue No. 2 that the pronote was for consideration. Under issue No. 3 the trial Court found that the pronote was not executed by practising any fraud and misrepresentation. Under issue No. 4 the plaintiff was held not to be a money-lender. The suit was found within time under issue No. 6. As has been observed, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent by recording a finding under issue No. 5. In first appeal instituted at the instance of the plaintiff-respondent, the finding under issue No. 5 was reversed and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed.
(3.) In this appeal which has been instituted by the defendant, it has been vehemently argued by Shri Amarjit Markan, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellate Court has committed legal error inasmuch as it has taken into consideration the land which was owned by the father of the appellant.;