R.S.A.No.4300 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A.No.4300 of 2008
Date of Decision: 6.01.2009
Manjit Kaur and others .....Appellants.
Versus
Surinder Kumar .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
Present: Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This regular second appeal filed by the defendants is
directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.8.2008 passed by
the lower appellate Court whereby that of the trial Court dated
12.9.2007 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery was set aside
and the suit was decreed.
Shorn off unnecessary details, the relevant facts of the
case are that on 25.5.2002, Jagjit Singh (since deceased) son of
Makhan Singh borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in cash from the
plaintiff at Gidderbaja on interest at the rate of 2% per month in the
presence of Roshan Lal and Darshan Kumar and executed a pronote
and receipt in token thereof. It was pleaded that said Jagjit Singh after
admitting the contents of pronote and receipt to be correct, put his
signatures as well as thumb impression in the presence of the
witnesses. Said Jagjit Singh had since died leaving behind the
R.S.A.No.4300 of 2008 -2-
defendants as his legal heirs who had inherited his estate. The plaintiff
approached the defendants to repay the said loan amount but they
refused which gave rise to the filing of the suit for recovery of Rs.3 lacs
as principal amount and Rs.2.13 lacs as interest accrued thereon.
Upon notice, the defendants contested the suit by filing a
joint written statement and raising various preliminary objections. It was
pleaded that the pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated
documents as Jagjit Singh, their predecessor-in-interest, had never
borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor executed any pronote and
receipt as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants prayed for dismissal
of the suit.
The trial Court on appreciation of the oral as well as the
documentary evidence adduced by the parties held that the plaintiff had
failed to prove the due execution of the pronote and receipt by Jagjit
Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants in favour of the
plaintiff against the loan, as alleged by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the trial
Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.9.2007 dismissed the suit of
the plaintiff.
Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff took the matter in appeal
and the lower appellate Court disagreeing with the findings arrived at by
the trial court and holding that the execution of the pronote and receipt
had been duly proved and the defendants had failed to discharge their
onus to prove that the pronote and receipt were forged and without
consideration accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and
decree passed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated
22.08.2008 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of
R.S.A.No.4300 of 2008 -3-
Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the suit, i.e. 11.5.2005 till the date of decree and future
interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and
perused the impugned judgments with his assistance.
Learned counsel for the appellant has made valient efforts
to persuade this Court to come to a different conclusion than the one
arrived at by the lower appellate court but could not show any material
on the basis of which it could be held that the findings recorded by the
lower appellate court suffer from any mis-reading or mis-appreciation of
evidence which may warrant interference by this Court in the regular
second appeal. The lower appellate court while reversing the judgment
and decree of the trial court, had recorded a finding that the execution
of the pronote, Ex.P1, and the receipt Ex.P2, and passing on of the
consideration had been duly proved by the plaintiff whereas except the
oral statements of one of the defendants and DW2 Gurdarshan Singh,
no other evidence was produced by them to show that the aforesaid
pronote and receipt were not executed by Jagjit Singh and that the
same were result of a fraud.
No question of law much less a substantial question of law
arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court.
In view of the above, there is no merit in the present appeal
and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
January 6, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE