SWATANTER KUMAR, J. - (1.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length.
(2.) THE plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,920/- on the averments that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 14,000/- on 2.8.1993 and had agreed to return the said amount with interest at the rate of Rs. 2% per month. The claim was based upon pronote and receipt. The sole argument of the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had not executed the pronote and in alternative the pronote was not valid as the stamps were not cancelled. Both these arguments of the learned counsel are mis-placed and mis-conceived. In the facts and circumstances of the case Exhibits P.1 and P.2 have not been proved in accordance with law. Furthermore, the plaintiff had examined had written expert to prove that the receipts were signed by the present appellant. The learned first appellate Court, while affirming the findings of facts recorded by the learned trial Court, held that the stand taken by the appellant was totally misconceived. The learned first appellate Court held as under :- "Thus, the sole purpose of cancelling the stamps on the instrument is only that the stamp should be so cancelled that the same may not be used again. Be that as it may, but as the stamps on the pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P-2 are properly affixed and cancelled, therefore, the same would not come to the rescue of the defendant, in this regard. The contrary arguments of learned counsel for defendant stricto-sensu deserve to be and are hereby repelled, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 17. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. Possibly, it cannot be denied that plaintiff has duly proved the execution and consideration of the pronote and receipt by producing overwhelming trustworthy evidence, while the defendant has vaguely denied the same. Rather, he has impliedly admitted his signatures on the pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P.2. Once the defendant has admitted his signatures and execution of the pronote and receipt and payment of the consideration amount are duly proved on record, then, there is a legal presumption in favour of the plaintiff, as contemplated under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the defendant is estopped from denying the validity of the instrument and denying his signatures, as postulated under Sections 120 to 122 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 18. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the findings to the trial Court issue No. 1 do not call for any interference and the same are affirmed. It is held that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 14,000/- from the plaintiff, agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2 per cent per mensem and executed pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P.2 on 2.8.1993 in favour of the plaintiff, in token thereof."
(3.) THE above are the findings of facts arrived at after due appreciation of the evidence. The concurrent view taken by the courts below does not call for any interference in the present Regular Second Appeal. Reference in this regard can be made to the cases of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (dead by LRs.), JT 2001(2) SC 407 : 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 243 (SC) and Kulwant Kaur and Ors. v. Gurdial Singh Mann (dead by LRs.) and others, JT 2001(4) SC 158 : 2001(2) RCR(Civil) 277 (SC). In the present case no material question of law arises. On the contrary it is simply a matter of appreciation of evidence.;