Chh HC | In a case where question of recovery of loan amount is based on the deed of ‘ikrarnama’ where does the burden of proof lie regarding its authenticity; HC decides

Chattisgarh High Court: Sanjay S. Agarwal J., dismissed the appeal being devoid of merits.

The facts of the case are such that the defendants had borrowed an amount of loan from the plaintiffs to meet their household affairs, like marriage purpose, and executed an ‘Ikrarnama’ in this regard agreeing to refund the same within a period of two months. Despite his oral demand of the said loan amount and also of issuing a demand notice dated 18-06-2008 immediately after completion of the said period of two months, it was not refunded. Hence a recovery suit was instituted wherein the defendant denied the claim of the ikrarnama and contended further that they, in fact, obtained the loan amount from the Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank in order to run the hotel business where the plaintiff was made as a guarantor. It is contended further that the alleged ‘Ikrarnama’ was a forged and fabricated document, and therefore the suit deserves to be dismissed. The Trial Court held that it was held that the Defendants have borrowed the alleged loan amount from the plaintiff after executing an ‘Ikrarnama’ and has failed to refund the same despite his demand. In consequence, decreed the claim. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal was preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), questioning the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment.

Counsel for the appellants submitted that at the most the transaction was made some time in the year 2005 and cannot be said to be made in the year 2008, and therefore, the Trial Court has erred in decreeing the claim of the Plaintiff based upon the alleged deed of ‘Ikrarnama’. It was further contended that the trial Court, while placing the burden of proof upon the Defendants with regard to the execution of the alleged ‘Ikrarnama” has committed a serious illegality in decreeing the Plaintiff’s claim.

The Court observed that the alleged transaction was made on 28-03-2008 and the alleged loan amount was given to the Defendants in his presence. It appears further from the testimony that the alleged stamp paper was brought by the Defendant Teerath Das himself and which has not been controverted by the Defendants and that apart no question was, however, put to him by the Defendants that the Plaintiff has obtained their signatures on the blank stamp paper, as alleged by them in their written statement. The initial burden was thus discharged by the Plaintiff regarding the execution of the alleged ‘Ikrarnama’ whereby the alleged loan amount of Rs 60,000/- was given to the Defendants in presence of the two witnesses. Since the Defendants have admitted their signatures on it, therefore, it was the duty of the Defendants to disprove its execution by way of cogent and reliable evidence. However, the witnesses of theirs are the hearsay witnesses and based upon their testimonies, it cannot be said that the alleged deed of ‘Ikrarnama’ was a forged and fabricated one, as alleged by the defendants.

The Court thus held that “the trial Court has not committed any illegality in upholding the due execution of the alleged document by decreeing the Plaintiff’s claim and I do not find any infirmity in the same.”

In view of the above, appeal was dismissed.[Ganpat Lal Sahu v. Manrakhan Kannauje, First Appeal No. 176 of 2011, decided on 08-12-2020]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.