- (1.) The defendants are in appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed and has been upheld in appeal by the Lower Appellate court. The plaintiff-respondent tiled a suit for recovery of Rs. 23,000/- out of which Rs. 17,000/- was the amount of principal and Rs. 6,000/- was on account of interest. The case of the plaintiff was that the said amount was given to the defendants-appellants by cheque dated 9.4.1979 for Rs. 17,000/- and was delivered to Sh. Krishan Kumar, partner of the appellants firm. It was alleged that the said amount has been given as a loan amount and, therefore, plaintiff was entitled to the interest also and accordingly, interest at the rale of 12% per annum had been charged on the principal amount of Rs. 17,000/-and accordingly Rs. 6,000/- was claimed as interest. The defence of the defendants was that amount was received by them for some business purpose and that the amount was given back in cash on 10.7.1979 to the tune of Rs. 9,000/- and secondly a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was paid by them through one Delhi firm Makhan Lal Suresh Kumar on 22.9.1979. It was alleged that the defendants firm as well as the plaintiff firm had accounts with the Delhi firm and the entries regarding that amount of Rs. 8,000/- had been made in the accounts books of the defendants firm and, therefore, this amount of Rs. 17,000/- stood paid back. On the issue of interest, it was held that there was no question of payment of interest because the amount was not received as loan, therefore, there was no liability' to pay interest. The plaintiff-respondent denied the allegations in the written statement by filing replication and accordingly, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff-firm is a registered partnership firm? OPP 2. Whether the amount of Rs. 17,000/- as mentioned in para No. 2 of the plaint was advanced as a loan to the defendants? OPP (onus objected to). 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to charge interest, if so to what extent? OPP 4. Whether the amount of Rs. 17,000/- was paid back by the defendants to the plaintiffs, as alleged in para No. 2 of the written statement? OPD 5. Relief.
(2.) The Trial Court on the basis of evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff firm was registered one and, therefore, the suit was maintainable under Issue No. 1. The finding under Issue No. 2 regarding the amount advanced was that the same had been given by cheque and there were entries in the books of accounts but on examining of Ex.P3 came to the conclusion that there was a different ink regarding the words "UD-HAR LAI GAYA" (taken on loan) and, thus, held that no interest was liable to be paid as it was not amount advanced as loan. Accordingly, under Issue No. 3 interest was denied to the plaintiff firm. On the issue of repayment, it was held that a sum of Rs. 9,000/- which was alleged to be paid in cash on 10.7.1979 was not substantiated as the payment had been made by cheque and the repayment also should have been made through cheque or draft and there should have been some receipt. It was also observed that a suggestion was made to PW-3 Rajinder Pal regarding repayment on 7.10.1979 whereas the plea was of repayment on 10.7.1979. Accordingly, the entries in the accounts books regarding cash payment of Rs. 9,000/- was disbelieved. Regarding balance payment of Rs. 8,000/- on 22.9.1979 through Delhi firm of Makhan Lal Suresh Kumar, after examining the evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that payment was made to Singla Rice Mills and not Singla Rice Company, the present plaintiff-respondent. It was also taken into account that the Delhi firm had dealings with the plaintiff firm Singla Rice Company and with Singla Rice Mills to whom the alleged payment had been made and, therefore, that payment of Rs. 8,000/- have been made to Singla Rice Mills which was sister concern and since the plaintiff-partner PW3 Rajinder Singh appeared in rebuttal evidence and clarified that even Singla Rice Mills had given a loan on 14.5.1979 Ex.PW3/X-1 to 5 to the defendants-appellants, therefore, that repayment was not to the plaintiff and accordingly, it was held that defendants were also liable to repay that amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for recovery or Rs. 17,000/- was decreed along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till its payment by judgment and decree dated 28.5.1985 after upholding the issue of territorial jurisdiction at Sangrur.
(3.) That defendants-appellants filed first appeal which was dismissed on 25.11.1988 by the Addl. District Judge, Sangrur wherein the Lower Appellate Court rejected the contention of the defendants-appellants and held that in absence of any receipt, repayment of Rs. 9,000/- was not proved. Regarding the second payment of Rs. 8,000/- it was held that payment was made to Singla Rice Mills and a suit had been filed by the Delhi firm against Singla Rice Mills for recovery of Rs. 8,000/- and, therefore, amount was never paid to the plaintiff-respondent Singla Rice Company and the appeal was, accordingly, dismissed.;