Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manak Lal Alias Manik Chand vs State Bank Of India And Others on 18 November, 2011
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
RSA No.1940 of 2009(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.1940 of 2009(O&M)
Date of Decision: November 18, 2011
Manak Lal alias Manik Chand
.....Appellant
v.
State Bank of India and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
........
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
C.M.No.5705-C of 2009 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 78 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
C.M.No.5706-C of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.1940 of 2009 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 2.5.2008 passed by learned District Judge, Amritsar, dismissing appeal filed by father of present appellant-defendant through his legal representatives against judgment and decree dated 17.4.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, vide which suit filed by respondent-plaintiff against father of present appellant- defendant and the other pro forma respondents-defendants was decreed.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by RSA No.1940 of 2009(O&M) -2- learned Courts below.
Briefly stated, respondent no.1-plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of `4,89,977.00 from pro forma respondents-defendants as well as father of present appellant, namely Amar Nath-deceased, who died during pendency of the suit and the present appellant is one of the legal heirs of Amar Nath-deceased, on account of cash credit special hypothecation limit to the tune of `2,50,000/- sanctioned in favour of respondent-defendant no.1 through respondents -defendants no.2 and 3 and father of present appellant, namely, Amar Nath and another person Buta Ram being guarantors for respondents-defendants no.1 and 2 and having executed a guarantee deed. Property belonging to father of present appellant was also mortgaged by depositing the title deed as a security for repayment of loan.
On notice being issued, principal borrower denied having borrowed any amount from the respondent-bank and having executed any document. Father of present appellant, Amar Nath filed separate written statement denying that any loan was advanced by plaintiff-respondent no.1. He also denied that he ever executed any guarantee deed in favour of bank. Rather plea has been taken that respondents-defendants no.2 and 3 produced the sale deed of his property in the bank and forged his signatures on various documents.
On appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff-bank for recovery of `4,89,977.00 alongwith future interest @ 16.5% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till the realisation of the entire decretal amount. However, it is clarified that liability of legal representatives of defendant no.4 including present appellant would be limited to the extent of estate RSA No.1940 of 2009(O&M) -3- inherited by them from deceased Amar Nath. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree by legal representatives of Amar Nath was dismissed by learned first appellate Court. No appeal was filed by other judgment debtors.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that alleged guarantee deed is a result of fraud and that in fact fraud has been committed upon father of present appellant. It is further contended that title deed belonging to property of father of present appellant was also handed over to the bank by the principal borrowers in a fraudulent manner and hence, it is contended that appellant and another legal heirs of deceased Amar Nath were not bound by the impugned judgments and decrees.
However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. Guarantee deed, Ex.P5 has been duly proved to have been executed by Amar Nath deceased in favour of respondent-plaintiff-bank. Hence, liability of Amar Nath became co-extensive with that of principal borrowers and they are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount in question. Moreover mortgage by deposit of title deed of property belonging to Amar Nath deceased as a security for repayment of loan has also been proved. Heavy onus lay upon Amar Nath to prove that his title deed was given by principal borrowers to the respondent-bank in a fraudulent manner, which he has failed to prove. Sufficient reasons have also been given by both the Courts below in discarding the deposition of handwriting expert DW4.
Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below RSA No.1940 of 2009(O&M) -4- is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine.
18.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge