R.S.A.No.3013 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3013 of 2008 Date of Decision : 28.7.2009 Jaskaran Singh and others ...Appellants Versus Suraj Bhan and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. R.N.Singal, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for recovery of Rs.1,80,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 11.11.2002, was decreed. The plaintiff pleaded that one Dhira Singh S/o Jang Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, borrowed a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2% per month. Dhira Singh executed a pronote and receipt on the aforesaid date. Dhira Singh died on 1.6.2004 and, thereafter, the present suit has been filed against the legal representatives of Dhira Singh, which has been decreed by both the Courts. The stand of the defendants in the written statement was that the pronote and receipt are false and frivolous documents. It do not bear R.S.A.No.3013 of 2008 2 the thumb impression of Dhira Singh. In fact Dhira Singh always signed the documents and defendants have not inherited the estate of Dhira Singh. To prove that Dhira Singh executed the pronote and receipt Exs.P-1 and P-2, the plaintiff examined PW-1 Kundan Singh, attesting witness of pronote and receipt and himself appeared as PW-2, whereas the defendants to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff examined Tehal Singh (DW-1), Devi lal (DW-2), Baljit Singh (DW-3) and Jaskaran Singh (DW-4). On the basis of evidence led by the parties, it was found that the pronote and receipt Exs.P-1 and P-2 are proved to be thumb marked by Dhira Singh and on the basis of said evidence, the suit was decreed. The statement of Devi lal (DW-2) as also certain record produced by him, was examined and found that the witness has deposed that he does not recognize the signature of Dhira Singh nor he knew Dhira Singh personally. Even the documents produced by him are not in his hand. Thus, it was found that even if Dhira Singh was in the habit of signing the documents, still it cannot be inferred that Dhira Singh has not thumb marked the pronote and receipt, because even a person who is in the habit of signing the documents can thumb mark the documents and the science of finger prints is more perfect than the science of handwriting. Thus, the pronote was found to be executed by Dhira Singh. Therefore, the decree has been passed alongwith interest at the rate of 1% per month from 11.11.2002 till the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% from the date of decree till realisation. R.S.A.No.3013 of 2008 3 Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has not examined any expert witness to prove that the pronote and receipt bear the thumb impressions of Dhira Singh. The plaintiff has not produced any standard thumb impression of Dhira Singh on the basis of which any finding could be returned that receipt and pronote bear the thumb impression of Dhira Singh. It is coupled with the fact that the defendants have produced documents by summoning a official from the bank, which shows that Dhira Singh in fact use to sign and not thumb mark the documents. Both the Courts have found that the pronote and receipt bear the thumb impression of deceased Dhira Singh. Such finding has been returned on the basis of primary evidence of Kundan Singh (PW-1) and that of the plaintiff, who has deposed that Dhira Singh thumb marked the pronote and receipt in his presence. Any other evidence would be corroborative evidence in respect of thumb impressions of Dhira Singh on the said pronote and receipt. In view of the said fact even if, the plaintiff has not examined any expert witness to prove the thumb impression of deceased Dhira Singh on the pronote and receipt after comparison with admitted thumb impressions is not material, so as to reverse the findings on issue of execution of pronote and receipt in second appeal. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the leaned counsel for the appellants that Dhira Singh normally use to sign and, therefore, thumb marking on pronote and receipt is a suspicious circumstance. In fact, photocopies of the documents produced by learned R.S.A.No.3013 of 2008 4 counsel for the appellants, show that such alleged signatures of Dhira Singh are that of a person, who is not well conversant with the writing skills. These are the signatures of a illiterate person, who has probably learn to put his name in writing. Apart from the said fact, the witness produced by the defendants is not able to state that the signatures bearing on the proceedings are of Dhira Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, as he has not deposed that Dhira Singh has signed such documents in his presence. Therefore, on the basis of statement of Devi Lal (DW-2), it cannot be held that documents Exs.P-1 and P-2 do not bear thumb impression of Dhira Singh. Another argument has been raised that the suit has been filed after the death of Dhira Singh, therefore, the possibility of comparison of thumb impression of Dhira Singh has been intentionally lost by the plaintiffs. The said argument is without any substance. The suit has been filed within the period of limitation. Since, Dhira Singh died on 1.6.2004 i.e. almost 1½ years after execution of the pronote, and the suit was filed in August 2005, it cannot be said that there was any design in filing of the suit after the death of Dhira Singh. In view of the above, I do not find that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity. Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 28.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE