Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this Regular Second Appeal is that the plaintiff (respondent herein) ought to have examined the handwriting expert to prove his case and further that only suit for specific performance would lie as per the terms contained in the alleged agreement between the parties. Basing his argument on these submissions, the learned counsel has impugned the judgments of the court below.
2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,71,875/- against the defendant. It was stated that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-, executed a pronote dated 11.7.1989 and acknowledged the receipt of the said amount. Interest at the rate of 1.80 per cent per month was payable. It was further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had also executed an agreement that in the event of default of payment he would have no objection to the sale of land measuring 4 Bighas 1 Biswas in favour of the plaintiff.
3. The suit was contested by the defendant. The learned trial Court framed as many as five issues. The onus of issue No. 2 which related to forgery and fabrication of the pronote and the receipt was placed upon the defendant. While answering all the issues against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff the trial Court decreed the suit for principal relief of recovery of money vide its judgment and decree dated 10th February, 1995. This was assailed unsuccessfully in appeal by the defendant and the learned first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 17th December, 1997 dismissed the appeal with costs.
4. Against these concurrent findings of fact the above challenge has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. The submissions raised on behalf of the appellant are without any merit. It was only by way of a security that the land was offered for sale by the defendant in the suit. It was in the discretion of the plaintiff to sue for recovery of money or to ask for the transfer of the land in his favour. It does not even appeal to common sense that the pronote and the receipt Ex.P1 and P.2 stood superseded or nullified by Ex.P.3, the agreement. The agreement was also intended to be a security for repayment of the loan at the first instance but in alternative the remedy for asking for the transfer of the land in favour of the plaintiff, was also open to the plaintiff.
5. With regard to the other contention, as already noticed, the onus of issue No. 2 was on defendant who miserably failed to discharge that onus. It is not even disputed before me that the appellant (defendant) used to sign in English and was a partner of a partnership concern. While he submitted his signatures to the expert, that he examined, he intentionally signed in Punjabi with an at tempt to wriggle out of the documents executed by him. Both the Courts below upon proper appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that Ex.P.1 and P.2 were executed for consideration and bore his signatures in comparison to Ex.D.1 and D.2. The findings of the learned trial Court and the learned first appellate Court on this very material issue are as under:-
'The defendant has been falsified from the evidence relied upon by him i.e Ex.D.l and D.2 the entries from the register of the petition written. The signatures in the register of the petition writer against the entries Ex.D.l and D.2 are tallying with his signatures on the pronote, receipt and the agreement. It is thus proved that the defendant had actually signed the pronote, the receipt and the agreement. He has made a vain effort to tell a lie in-the court and to conceal his genuine signatures. It is thus proved that the pronote, receipt and the agreement were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and he had received an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- on the basis of the pronote Ex.P.l and receipt Ex.P.2 and had agreed to pay interest @ 1.80% P.M. on the loan amount.'
'He has further disclosed that on the same day he also scribed agreement Ex.P.3 at the instance of the appellant and the appellant agreed to repay the amount along with interest upto 30.6.1990 and on his failure to pay the said amount he had agreed to execute the sale deed of his l/9th share out of the land comprising Khasra No. 5908/1428/4-1. He also proved the entries in his register regarding pronote and receipt and the agreement. Surinder Kumar attesting witness of the above said documents was examined as PW2 and he has advanced the case of the respondents from every corner and proved that a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ was taken by the appellant from the respondent as loan at the time of execution of pronote Ex.P.l, receipt Ex.P.2 and agreement Ex.P.3. He further deposed that Dewan Chand also attested the receipt Ex.P.2 and agreement Ex.P.3. Bhagwant Singh one of the respondents reiterated the stand taken in the plaint and further proved the execution of the pronote and receipt in their favour.'
From the above concurrent finding of fact which is based upon proper appreciation of evidence, it is clear that the stand taken by the present appellant has rightly been disbelieved by the Courts below as it even lacks bona fide.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the learned Courts below especially when the scope of interference in such finding in any case, is a very limited one in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in Rajender Kumar v. Jamna Dass Kotewalia, J.T. 1990(3) S.C. 197 and Ramanuia Naidu v. Kaniah Naidu, J.T. 1996(3) S.C. 164.
Consequently the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.