R.S.A. No. 3622 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 3622 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: November 12, 2008
Gora Lal
..Appellant
v.
Karnail Singh
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. D. S. Pheruman, Advocate for the appellant.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
The defendant is in second appeal before this court against
concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by the
respondent-plaintiff was decreed only to the extent of recovery of Rs. 1,67,000/-
with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of execution of agreement to
mortgage till the institution of the suit and with future interest @ 6% per annum.
Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for
possession by way of specific performance of agreement to mortgage dated
29.6.2002 and in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 1,67,000/- along with interest,
the amount paid at the time of execution of agreement. The appellant-defendant
being owner in possession of 9/40th share of land measuring 77 bighas and 14
biswas, entered into an agreement with the respondent-plaintiff and at the time of
execution of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 1,67,000/- was paid in cash. The
appellant-defendant denied the execution of the agreement. The stand was that his
thumb impression was taken on blank papers.
On consideration of the material placed on record by the parties, the
trial court decreed the suit only to the extent of recovery of money. Even before the
lower appellate court, the appellant failed.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is discrepancy in
the evidence led by the respondent-plaintiff which clearly raises a doubt on the
execution of the document and passing of consideration to the appellant.
However, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant and also
perusing agreement dated 29.6.2002, I do not find any merit in the submission
made. A perusal of the document does not show that it was a kind of document on
which something had been written later on an existing thumb marked plain paper.
R.S.A. No. 3622 of 2008 [2]
Further, the document shows that it contained the signatures of the son of the
appellant- Jaspal Kumar, who in his own hand had acknowledged the receipt of a
sum of Rs. 1,67,000/- before putting his signatures. This fact could not be
disputed. On the basis of the document, which was duly proved, the learned courts
below have passed a decree of recovery of money only. The findings recorded are
plain and simple findings of fact giving rise to no question of law, much less a
substantial question of law.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
12.11.2008
mk