RSA No. 2112 of 2008 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 2112 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: August 26, 2009
Chhinder Kaur and others ...........Appellants
Versus
Ujaggar Singh ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.A.S.Jattana, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.S.S.Grewal, Advocate for the respondent
**
Sabina, J.
Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.384375/- i.e. Rs.
3,00,000/- being principal amount and Rs.84375/- being interest.The suit
of the plaintiff was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 2.4.2007. Aggrieved by the same,
the defendants filed an appeal which was dismissed with modification of
the interest by the Additional District Judge, Barnala vide judgment and
decree dated 18.2.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants.
The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District
Judge in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment, read as under:-
RSA No. 2112 of 2008 (O&M) 2
” 2. Succinctly, the facts leading to the filing of the present
appeal are that initially, Ujjagar Singh, plaintiff filed a suit for the
recovery of Rs.3,84,374/- against Chhinder Kaur, Lakhwinder
Singh and Jasbir Singh being legal heirs of Balbir Singh, since
deceased. It is averred in the plaint that Balbir Singh, son of Teja
Singh was having acquaintance with the plaintiff, as the plaintiff
had been posted as teacher in Govt. High School, Sanghera for the
last 30 years and had since been retired, as such. Balbir Singh,
son of Teja Singh, had died on 8.6.2002. During his life time,
Balbir Singh, son of Teja Singh on 15.1.2002, had borrowed a
sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff and had executed the
pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. This pronote and
receipt was scribed by Kartar Singh, son of Hira Singh of village
Thikriwala and Harvinder Singh, son of Jarnail Singh and
Bharpur Singh, son of Harchand Singh, residents of Thikriwala
were also present at that time. Balbir Singh, son of Teja Singh,
deceased had agreed to pay interest @ Rs.150% per month. After
scribing of the pronote and receipt, it was read over to Balbir
Singh, who after understanding the contents thereof, had signed
both on the pronote and receipt at various places. Even the
witnesses, had signed the pronote and receipt in the presence of
Balbir Singh. During his life time, Balbir Singh had failed to
make the payment of the outstanding amount, despite demands
having been raised. After his death, the mutation of his land
stands sanctioned in favour of the defendants vide mutation
No.14968. After the death of Balbir Singh, the defendants have
RSA No. 2112 of 2008 (O&M) 3also failed to make the payment of the outstanding amount despite
demands, having been raised by the plaintiff, time and again.
3. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Court, the
defendants made appearance and filed the written statement. In
the written statement, the defendants raised legal objections that
the pronote and receipt dated 15.1.2002 is forged and fabricated
document; there are material alterations in the pronote and receipt
in question; the pronote and receipt were falsely prepared by the
plaintiff in connivance with the scribe and the witnesses; the
plaintiff is working as money lender without any licence, on
account of which, the suit is liable to be dismissed; the plaintiff
has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit; the
plaintiff has filed the present suit, only to harass the defendants on
account of which, the defendants are entitled to special costs u/s
35-A CPC from the plaintiff. On merits, the relationship of the
defendant with Balbir Singh son of Teja Singh, deceased, has not
been disputed. Even the fact of death of Balbir Singh has not
been disputed. However, it is denied that on 15.1.2002, Balbir
Singh, during his life time, had borrowed an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff and had executed the pronote and
receipt in his favour. Rather, the pronote and receipt is alleged to
be false and fabricated document. The defendants took up the
plea that the plaintiff along with his son, is running the Artiya
shop and Balbir Singh used to sell his crop through them and as
security, they had obtained the signatures of Balbir Singh on
blank papers. In the year 2001, Balbir Singh had demanded the
RSA No. 2112 of 2008 (O&M) 4settlement of accounts from the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff
delayed the same, on one pretext or the other, on account of
which, in the year 2001, Balbir Singh had started selling his crop
through Gurcharan Singh, Artyia. Upon this plaintiff Ujjagar
Singh nursed a grievance against Balbir Singh, on account of
which, this pronote and receipt had got prepared by the plaintiff
against Balbir Singh. Besides this, in the year 2001, Balbir Singh
was not mentally fit person. He was disturbed, on account of
which, he could not understand his good or bad. He was
undergoing treatment from Dr.Sandeep Kumar, from Manodisha
Hospital, Barnala and had remained admitted in the Hospital. On
account of this mental illness of Balbir Singh, the question of
borrowing of huge amount of Rs.3,00,000/- does not arise. The
plaintiff have obtained the signatures of Balbir Singh on blank
pronote and receipt and thus these documents have no legal value.
As such, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the suit.
4. In the replication, the plaintiff controverted the averments made
in the written statement and reiterated the facts pleaded in the
plaint.”
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed:-
“1. Whether deceased Balbir Singh taken a loan of Rs.3 lac from
the plaintiff on 15.1.02 at Thikriwala and in lieu of this, he
executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs is entitled to interest, if so, at what
rate?OPP
RSA No. 2112 of 2008 (O&M) 53. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount
from the defendants?OPP
4. Whether the pronote and receipt dated 15.1.2002 is a forged
and fabricated document?OPD
5. Whether there are material alterations in the pronote and
receipt?OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff is doing the business of money lending
without licence?OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to
file the present suit?OPD
8. Relief.”
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the
opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merits.
Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and
receipt dated 15.1.2002 executed by Balbir Singh in favour of the plaintiff
after borrowing a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. In order to prove his case, plaintiff
himself appeared in the witness box as PW3 and examined PW1 Kartar
Singh scribe of the pronote and receipt and PW2 Bharpur Singh, attesting
witness. The said witnesses deposed with regard to the due execution of the
pronote and receipt.
The case of the defendants, who are the legal representatives
of deceased-Balbir Singh, is that Balbir Singh was suffering from
hypomania and he was having business dealing with the plaintiff. The
signatures of Balbir Singh had been taken on blank pronote and receipt by
the plaintiff.
Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by
RSA No. 2112 of 2008 (O&M) 6
the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff has been
successful in proving the due execution of the pronote and receipt and
hence, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be decreed. Both the Courts
below have rightly rejected the plea raised by the defendants that the
signatures of Balbir Singh had been taken on blank pronote and receipt as
the execution of the same has been duly proved by the plaintiff. Moreover,
Balbir Singh never made any complaint to the police or any authority
regarding his signatures having been obtained on blank pronote and receipt
by the plaintiff. Balbir Singh had sold his crops to the plaintiff in the year
2001 and this showed that he was not such a mentally sick person who
could not conduct any business transaction. Defendants examined DW1
Dr.Sandeep Kumar to establish that Balbir Singh was suffering from
Hypomania. In this regard as per DW1, Balbir Singh was under his
treatment from 23.5.2001 to 26.12.2001. However, there is nothing on
record to suggest that thereafter the condition of Balbir Singh was not
normal. The pronote and receipt in dispute were executed on 15.1.2002.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
factum of lending of money had not been not established by the plaintiff
from the accounts maintained by him in his normal course of business as he
was running the business of commission agent.
However, there is no force in this argument. Plaintiff has
been successful in proving the due execution of the pronote and receipt and
it is possible that the advancement of loan to Balbir Singh was not
mentioned by him in his accounts books as it did not relate to their business
transaction.
As per the jamabandi, mutation with regard to land of Balbir
RSA No. 2112 of 2008 (O&M) 7
Singh has been sanctioned in favour of the defendants. In these
circumstances no ground for interference is made out.
No substantial question of law arises in this regular second
appeal which would warrant interference by this Court, Accordingly, this
appeal is dismissed.
(Sabina)
Judge
August 26, 2009
arya