Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inder Singh vs Kamla Devi --Respondent on 10 February, 2011
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA. No. 3925 of 2009
Date of Decision: 10.2.2011.
Inder Singh --Appellant
Versus
Kamla Devi --Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA.
Present:- Mr. R.S. Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. M.S. Chahal, Advocate for the respondent.
***
SABINA.J Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery basing his claim on pronote and receipt dated 8.12.1996. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that after borrowing the amount in question defendant had executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff and had agreed to repay the loan amount on demand. However, the defendant had failed to repay the loan amount. Hence suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff.
Defendant in his written statement denied the execution of pronote and receipt. It was averred that the pronote and receipts were result of fraud and fabrication. It was further averred that parties were related to each other. Defendant and Major Sultan Ram were residing separately. Defendant was having blind faith in Sultan Ram. Sultan Ram had fabricated another pronote and receipt dated 2.8.1993 for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and ex- parte decree and judgement were passed in favour of Sultan Ram. Other pronotes and receipts were also got executed from the defendant in favour of relatives of the plaintiff. In all these said pronotes and receipts Manphool Singh was the attesting witness and the scribe Captain Daya Nand. RSA. No. 3925 of 2009 -2- The signatures of the defendant might have been obtained on the pronote and receipt under the influence of liquor.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court:-
1. Whether the defendant took a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from plaintiff on 8.12.1996 and plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.
86,000/- along with interest and cost from the defendant, as prayed for?OPP
2. Whether writing dt. 8.12.1996 in favour of plaintiff is false and result of fraud and misrepresentation and are without consideration?OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD.
4. Whether the suit is vague and incomplete and is not maintainable in the present form?OPD
5. Whether the suit is not properly verified and is liable to be dismissed.?OPD.
6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD.
7. Relief."
The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgement and decree dated 1.8.2008. The said judgement and decree were upheld in appeal filed by the defendant by the District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgement and decree dated 4.6.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal.
Plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery basing his claim on the pronote and receipt in question. Defendant had denied the execution of the said pronote and receipt. In order to prove the execution of the pronote and receipt plaintiff herself appeared in the witness box as PW2 and examined PW-3 Shamsher Singh Malik, Handwriting Expert, who after examining the RSA. No. 3925 of 2009 -3- questioned signatures of the defendant on the pronote and receipt with his standard signatures opined that they were of the same person. Plaintiff also examined the scribe of the pronote and receipt. Defendant on the other hand took up the plea that his signatures might have been obtained under the influence of liquor. Thus, the signatures of the defendant stood proved on the pronote and receipt. Defendant had, however, failed to establish the fraud played upon him at the time of execution of the pronote and receipt.
Parties are related to each other. In these circumstances, the defendant might have borrowed money from the plaintiff and other relatives and had executed the pronote and receipt in favour of the persons, who had advanced loan to him. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the pronote and receipt were duly executed by the defendant.
No substantial question of law arises in this Regular Second Appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE 10.2.2011.
lucky