Arvind Kumar, J. - (1.) AFTER having lost concurrently before the two Courts below the defendant has approached this Court through this regular second appeal and has laid challenge to the judgments and decrees passed by the the trial court as well as first appellate court dated 22.05.2009 and 27.11.2009 respectively, by dint of which the suit of the plaintiff -respondent for recovery has been decreed for principal amount of Rs. 54,000/ -. The learned trial Court awarded interest of Rs. 23,760/ - as claimed by the plaintiff till filing of the suit and also awarded future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization. However, the learned appellate Court below modified the rate of interest and reduced the same to 9% per annum from the date of accrual till decision of the suit and thereafter @ 6% per annum only on principal amount till payment.
(2.) IT is apparent that the plaintiff -respondent instituted a suit for recovery against the defendant -appellants while relying upon the entries in the account book duly signed by the appellants whereby they took a loan of Rs. 54,000/ - on 27.7.2022. The aforesaid loan was to carry interest @ 2% P.M. From the facts it emerges out that there is no dispute to the fact by the defendants that the thumb impressions appearing thereon were not their. Although the stand of the defendants was that the above -said record, pronote and receipt are forged one, but nothing worth was produced by them to substantiate their said plea. Besides the bald statement of defendant Gurdeep Singh and that of one Jit Singh (DW2), no cogent and convincing evidence was produced by the appellants in support of their allegations of forgery and fraud. Even there is no denial of business transaction between the plaintiff and defendants. Thus, both the courts below on the strength of evidence produced on record by the plaintiff, consisting of scribe of the entries as well as plaintiff himself, who in one voice deposed about the execution of said documents by the defendants in their presence, concurrently held the due execution thereof. Thus, once the instrument was found to be duly executed by defendants, the Courts below rightly held that it was for consideration and that since the defendant -appellants failed to return the loan amount, therefore, he is liable to return the same with interest, in the manner indicated above. The findings arrived at by both the courts below need no interference. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.;