73 1 RSA N0371 OF 1986 1 Il V 6n INTlil3 HIG14COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT HANDIGARH RSA N0371 01 1986 Date ofdecisionl5A201 1 Ganeshthroughhis Iegalheirs 1 ll Versus 0 Sarbatiand others 0 I C5 CORAM2 HONBLE MRJUSTICE JITENDRA CIlAUHAIV I Present MrMahipal Advocate Z for the appellantsl None for the respondcntse I JITENDRA CHAUHAN J Z The present appealis directedagainstthejudgment artddecree m dated21IO1985 passedby the learned Additional Dlstrict JudgeRohtak neo allowingthe appealofthe defendantsagainstthejudgnlentand decreedated Z ll 231984 passedby the learned trial Courl allowingthe suit of thc plaintifE 13rieffactsofllhe case are that lhe filed a suit for recovery of Rs1 3600 0Rsl0000436001 on the basis of pronote Exhibit fl and receiptExhibitP2 dated 531 979 on the allegationthat Subh Ram took a ioan of Rs 100001 with lnlerest Io per month from hinl and executcd a note and a receiptIll lleu thereof It is Iurthercasc ofthe plaintiffthatneithcr Subh Ram 110r his leoel hcirs inade anypayment10plaintiffHence the suit The defendantswho are Icgalheirs of SubhRam contestedthe . Anita 2012.05.17 12: 39 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 RSAN03710F1986 2 IQ P suit on the that no Ioan was taken by the deceasedSubh Ram Oll 531 979 froin theplaintiff The defendantsalso statedthat pronoteExhibit Pl andreceiptExhibit P2 does not bear signatures of the deceasedSubh Ram Thedefendantsalso took the stand in the written statement that the led a suainst Subh Ram on 91138 for recovery ofRs14956which was dismissedon 3059 0 O The trial court after consideringentireevidence allowed the I 9 SUit of the plaintiffby holdingthat the deceasedSubh Ram took a loan of I Rs100001with interestat the rate of lIo per lnonth froln theplaintiffby Z 13xhibitPl and receiptExhiblt P2 in the presenceof executlng r SunderLaland LajjeRain PWs on 531979 I Feelingaggrievedagainstthe judgmentand decree of the Lo learnedtrial Court the defendantspreferred an appealwhich was allowed Z and the suit ofthe plaintiffwas dismissed on the groundthat the pronote CO ExhibitPl and Exhibit P2 were not executedby the deceasedSubh Rain for 7 Z consideration The inere presenceof thumb of the deceased Subh Ram would not sufflcientto create liabilityagainstthe legalheirs of Subh Ram Hence the presentappeal Leamed counsel for the submits that the deceasedSubh Raln was a close relativeof theplaintiffand therefore there lS nothingunusual and unnaturalfor the plaintiffto advance loan to Subh Ram duringthe pendency of another SUlt regarding the recovery of the amount of the loan He has further submittedthat writingmark as A and B on receiptExhibit P2 suggeststhat the same was genuinewith the endorsementof Sunder Lal PW2 and LajjeRam PW3 and no alteration or . Anita 2012.05.17 12: 39 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 C RSA N0371 OF 1986 3 P additionon receiptExhibit P2 was made It hasfurther been subnlittedthat as per the statement of Soin Nath Finger Print Expert PW6 it is made out that the thuinb ilnpressions on the pronoteand receiptWere that of Subh Rain the Finger 1 Expertarrived upon thesaid conclusion aftertallyingthe thuinb impression of SubhRam appended on thephotocopyofthe mortgagedeed Exhibit P3 0 0 Learnedcounsel hasalso submittedthat thereis no disputethat I 9 earlier a suit was oflledby the Iaintiff for recoveryof Rs4956 Oll I 9 l l 1978 However the same was dismissed as withdrawan by the Z defendant as his claiin was satisfiedby the deceasedSubh Ram Thereafler Ct second loan was advancedto Subh Ram which is provedfrom 13xhibitl I andExhibit P2 Z On the other hand leamed counsel for the sublnits that it is not possibleto believe that the ClO plaintiffwould have advanced a Oesh loan to deceasedSubh Ram during 7 Z the pendencyof another suit for recovery of anlount of the 8rst loan He Om further submits that receiptExhibit P2 is a foreed document as the deposition of attestingwitnessesie SunderLa PW2 and LauaRam PW3 disclosed that theyare illiterate but thereceiptbearsendorselnentlnark A 1 and mark B purporting to be in the of Sunder Lal and Laljja Raln and also purportsto bear their respective which suggest thatthereceiptExhilP2 is a fake doculnent I have heard the Iearnedcounsel for the appellantand perused therecord None caused appearanceon behalf of the respondents despite . Anita 2012.05.17 12: 39 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 76 RSAN03710F1986 4 P grantingseveral In the circumstancesthere is no optionleft withtheCourt but to proceed furtherwith the matter Although 110 substantialquesti on of law arises for considerationofthis Courtagainstthejudgment and decreeof reversal this W Cowt hasrescannedthe entireevidenceminutely To prove the authenticity of Exhibit Pl and Exhibit P2 the 0 0 piaintiffrelied uponthe statements of Sunder Lal PW2 and LajjaRam I C5 PW3 As per the statelnent of LaljaRain the deceasedSubh Ram took a I loan of Rs100001 Oll interest 1Io per month from the plaintiffon Z 531 979 the were written by Deed Writer Narinder Kumar upon which theyput lheir thulnb The version of this witness I has been corroboratedby Sunder Lal PlN2 lt has also coine in the C Z stateinentsofSunder lal andLajjeRanl Pws that theyare illiterate andthey affixed their thuinb on the receiptExhibit P2 as attesting r wltness However the receiptExhibit P2 bearsendorsementA4arkA and 7 Z Mark B purporting to be in the handwriting of Sunder Lal PW2 and Lajja n Ram PW3 and also purportsto bear their The said writingon Exhibit P2 was disowned by these witnesses which suggeststhat some alterationin the receiptExhibit P2 The plaintiffalso placedreliance on photocopy of the registeredmortgagedeed dated 163 1979 Exhibit P3 which was executed by Subh Ram and bearshis thulnb on it The and flngerprint expertSom Nath AggarwalPW6videhis reportExhibit PW619 sublnittedthat thethumb impression as appended on Exhibit P2 is similar to that appended on the of moitgage deed Exhibit P3 However this Court is not incllned to take into . Anita 2012.05.17 12: 39 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 RSAN0371 OF 1986 5 P this fact 8s it i s settled Iaw that the exhibited document should be tallied with the originaldocument ln the presentcase the Exhibit P3 on which the reliancehas beenplacedbytheplaintiff is a of and in the circumstances no reliance can 1 beplacedon Exhibit P3 0 lt has also come on recordthatthe relationsbetween theparties 0 0 were not cordial This fact 1S proved froin the order Exhibit D2 which I C5 shows that a complaint case underSections32314521506 was registeredon I the of the plaintiffagainstSubh Raln in the year 1982 Z Thoughthe same wasdismissed on 2431985 in view ofthe comproinise C reachedbetween them Apartfrom this no notlce was served upon the I deceasedSubh Rain by the plaintiffduringhis life tilne in spiteof the fact thatthe relations between the plaintiffand deceasedSubh Ram were not Z cordial The plaintiffcame forwardand demandedthe suit amount only ClO after the death of Subh Raln which suggeststhat the plaintlffmade a 7 Z concocted storyagainstSubh Ram Om As regardsthe contentlon of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the deceasedSubh Ram wasa close relative of the plaintiffthe same does not inspireany confidence as the learnedappellatecourt has rightly held tha there was every opportunityfor the plaintiffto get some 1 documents thumb marked from Subh Ram without passi ng any considerationin his favour ln view of above discussion it becomes clear that there 1S nothingon record which establishesthe fact ofpassingofanyconsideration in favour of deceasedSubh Ram and it is also establishedthat the pronote . Anita 2012.05.17 12: 39 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 OF 1986 6 Exhibit Pl and receipt hibit P2 were not executed by deceasedSubh Ram for consideration For lhe reasons mentioned above the presenl appeal lS dismissed and the judgmentand decreeoflearned lower appellate court are maintained There is no order as to costs ct 0 0 50402011 CHAUHANI I mk JUDGE C5 I Notel Whetherto be referredto theReporter2 INo Z C I Z Qo 7 Z J 0p . Anita 2012.05.17 12: 39 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document