V.P. Tyagi, J.
1. This is defendants' Civil First Appeal directed against, the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Joalawar, dated March 30, 1973, whereby the State was directed to return the amount of Rs. 7,487.42 to the plaintiff respondent Paralal, which was recovered by the State Government under the proceedings taken under the Public Demands Recover; Act.
2. The case of the plaintiff was that he had dealings with the Jhalawar State Bank, which was taken up by the State Government after the formation of farmer Rajasthan, when the Jhalawar State was merged with other constituents unite of the new State of Rajasthan. According to the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint he had borrowed from the Chaumahala branch of the Jhalawar Stale Bank Rs. 1,200/- in the year 1946. On September 30, 1948, she plaintiff was called by the Manager of the Chaumahala branch of Jhalawar State Bank through Sambhu Chaprasi (P.W. 3) at about 9 P.M. in the Bank and was asked to sign certain blank forms under the pretext that a new State of Rajasthan has now been formed and, therefore, the plaintiff should either pay she dues immediately or to furnish adequate security for the payment thereof. According to the plaintiff he signed the blank forms, which afterwards when he happened to see the account-books of the Bank, were converted by the Jhalawar State Bank into an application form for advancing a loan of Rs. 5,699/-. It is further averred by the plaintiff that such a loan was never advanced to him nor did he receive any such amount from the said Bank of Jhlawar, but later on the S ate of Rajasthan initiated the proceeding under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act and ultimately got his tone attached and auctioned But before the auction was completed, the plaintiff arranged to borrow Rs. 7,000/- from prospective purchaser of the house and paid all the State dues under the P.D.R. Act to the tune of Rs. 7,787,42. The present suit relates to the recovery of this amount from the State Government which, according to the plaintiff, were realised by the defendant appellants under durese. He has also pleaded that the then Manager of the Jhalawar State Bank played fraud with him by forging certain documents, which eventually made the basis for the recovery of the said amount from the plaintiff.
3. In his plaint it was also alleged by the plaintiff that he had pledged 60 'mani' of cotton with the Jhalawar State Back, which is still lying with the Bank and, therefore, he is entitled to get back that cotton from the custody of the Back. In these circumstances it is prayed by the plaintiff that a decree be passed in his favour for the return of Rs. 7,48742 and also for resuming 60 'mani' of cotton pledged with the Bank.
4. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of the State and the Collector, therein, the allegation of fraud made by the plaintiff, were specifically denied and it was averred that the amount of Rs. 5,699/- was advanced to the plain in after getting adequate security from his brother Phoolchand and Shambhu Chaprasi of the Bank. The act of pledging of 60 'mani' of cotton was not accepted by the defendants.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed as many as eight issues, but both the parties have limited their argument before this Court only on issue No. 1, which reads 'whether the loan bond of the amount of Rs. 5,699/- is forged, fictitious and without consideration?' The trial court believing the statement of the plaintiff recorded the findings of this issue that the loan of Rs. 5,699/ was hot actually advanced by the Bank to the plaintiff and, therefore, the amount that had been realised under the coercive proceedings prescribed by the P.D.R. Act, should be refunded to the plaintiff.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants drew my attention to the documents relied upon by the parties and read out the statement of Shambhu Lal Chaprasi of the Bank (P.W. 3), who was then working in the Jhalawar State Bank, and urged that the trial court has not correctly read out the statement of the plaintiff's witness, which (awns the liability on him, to pay of the loan of Rs. 5,699/- to the State Government.
7. P.W. 1 Puralal plaintiff has categorically denied to have received any amount on September 30, 1918, from the Bank He has, however, admitted his signatures on documents Ex. A/1 and Ex. A/2. He has also admitted the signatures of his brother Phoolchand on document Ex. A/3, which is a security bind alleged to have been executed by Phoolchand for Rs. 3000/- to stand as a surety for the plaintiff Puralal to pay of the debt to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- in case Puralal fails to discharge his obligation. Ex. 8 is security bond alleged to have been signed by Shambhu Lal (P.W. 3). By executing this document Sambhulal stood as a surety for the payment of Rs. 500/- towards the loan amounting to Rs. 5,699/- in case the plaintiff Puralal fails to discharge his obligation.
8. It is not disputed by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties that D.W. 2 Brahmananda, who was a cashier in the Bank at the relevant time, had made entries in the cash book of the Bank on 30th September, 1948, showing the payment of Rs. 5699/- of plaintiff Puralal. Brahman and has been examined as a witness by the defendant and he proved not only this entry of Rs. 5,699/-, but also another entry of payment of Rs. 612/-, which was a payment made by the plaintiff towards this loan.
9. The learned trial court, it appears, did hot carefully examine the statement of PW 3 Shambhulal and held that the consideration for document Ex. A/1, A/2 and A/4 could not be proved and, therefore, the plaintiff was not liable to pay any amount to the Bank. This finding of the trial court is obviously erroneous in the fact of the deposition of the plaintiff's own witness Shambhulal (P.W. 3), who has categorically stated that Puralal plaintiff had acknowledged before him the receipt of Rs. 5,699/- from the Bank and it was the plaintiff who had asked him to stated his surety for Rs. 500/- for which document Ex. 8 was Ex. cited by him. This witness has also admitted that he, had a house worth about Rs. 400/- in village Gangdhar and therefore he stood as surety for the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 500/- at the instance of Puralal towards the loan which Puralal had received from the Bank, He has admitted his signatures on document Ex. 8.
10. Phoolchand is the brother of the plaintiff and he also signed a document Ex. A/3 standing as a surety for the payment of Rs. 3000/- towards the loan of Rs. 5699/-. Phoolchand's signature oh Ex. A/3 is identified by the plaintiff him self. Phoolchand has not been brought in the Witness box by any of the parties. It may be mentioned that Phoolchand also put his signature on the receipt Ex. A/2, which was executed by the plaintiff evidencing the payment of Rs. 5,699/- by the Bank to him. Phoolchand's signatures on Ex. A 1 are between C to D and that of Puralal between A to B. These signatures are not denied by Puralal. It is true that the documents Ex. A/1, A/2 are in the handwriting of the Bank Manager himself, but it is beyond cur comprehension that Phoolchand and Puralal would have signed these documents without going through he contents thereof or would nave pinned them when the forma were blank. The part payment of the debt by Puralal on a subsequent date is the proof of the fact that it was in his knowledge that he owed money to the Bank and, therefore, he had made that part payment, which has been proved by the statement of D.W. 2 Brahmanand. There is nothing on the record to show that Girdharlal, the then manager of the Chsumahala Branch of the Bank was involved in a criminal case and that the charge against him related to the forgery alleged to have been made by him in respect of the documents Ex. A/1, A/2 and A/3, I (sic) difficult to say how the learned Judge has made a reference in his judgment about the criminal proceedings against Girdharlal.
11. If the evidence of the plaintiff and that of the defendants is read carefully then no doubt is left in the mind of the Court that it has been established that the consideration had passed against the execution of the documents Ex. A/1 and A/2 and that Phoolchand and Sambhulal stood as sureties for the payment of the debt of Rs. 5,699/ to the extent of Rs. 3000/ and Rs. 500/ respectively. In view of this discussion I find it difficult to sustain the judgment and decree passed by the trial court
12. As regards the pledging of 60 'mani' of cotton with the Bank, there is no sp cine allegations in the plain and the plaintiff has not given any details as to when and against which transaction the said cotton was pledged with the Bank. P.W. 2 Tahir Ali has been examined by the plaintiff to prove this transaction of pledging of 60 'mani' of cotton with the Bank, but from the testimony of this witness it appears that it was done in the year 1947, that is one year prior to the date of entering into the transaction of advancing loan of Rs. 5,099/ to the plaintiff by the Bank. Even if the statement of Tahir Ali is believed, then this fact has nothing to do with the loan of Rs. 5,639/-received by the plaintiff from the Bank on September 30, 1948. On such mea-pre pleadings no relief can be given to the plaintiff in respect of the pledging of 60 'mani' cotton the Bank, specially when it has not been admitted by the Bank that any cotton was ever pledged by toe plaintiff against any transaction. Such casual and cursory allegation cannot be made the basis for any relief in the suit before a court of law. I do not find any evidence on the record for granting any relief to the plaintiff in respect of the return of 60 'mani' cotton to him.
13. The result is that the appeal of the appellants is allowed and the decree passed by the trial court favour of the plaintiff respondent is set aside. The defendant-appellants shall get their costs from the plaintiff-respondent throughout.