-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 2741 of 2009 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: February 11, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 2741 of 2009 (O&M). Smt.Kamlesh and others ... Appellants VERSUS Rajesh Kumar ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The defendants-appellants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 2741 of 2009 (O&M). trial Court was set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent for recovery of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- as principal amount and Rs.40,000/- as interest) was decreed. I have heard Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate, appearing for the respondent and have gone through the records of the case. Plaintiff-respondent Rajesh Kumar had advanced a loan of Rs.1,20,000/- on 28.8.2003 to Ram Pal (now deceased), predecessor-in-interest of the defendants-appellants. Ram Pal had agreed to repay the loan amount with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. Ram Pal (deceased) had executed pronote (Exhibit P.1) and receipt (Exhibit P.2) in the presence of Shri Bhagwan (P.W.2). Ram Pal (deceased) had not repaid the loan amount to the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff served legal notice upon the defendants-appellants, who are legal heirs of Ram Pal calling them to repay the loan amount. Since the property of Ram Pal had come into the hands of the appellants and they had not repaid the loan amount of the plaintiff, the instant suit was filed. The trial Court held that deceased Ram Pal had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the plaintiff and had executed pronote (Exhibit P.1) and receipt (Exhibit P.2) in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to pay the loan amount with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. The deceased failed to repay the loan amount. However, the trial Court held that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable against the defendants- -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 2741 of 2009 (O&M). appellants; thus dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. However, on appeal by the plaintiff-respondent, the first Appellate Court held that as the borrowing of the amount by Ram Pal, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants-appellants, from the plaintiff stood proved on record, the suit filed by the plaintiff against the legal heirs of Ram Pal was perfectly maintainable. Accordingly, by holding that the trial Court had erred in holding that the suit against the defendants-appellants was not maintainable, the lower appellate reversed the finding of the trial Court on this point. The plaintiff, in para No.3 of the plaint, specifically pleaded that the defendants were owners in possession of the property left by Ram Pal (deceased). This fact was not denied by the defendants in their written statement. Admittedly, the defendants are the legal heirs of Ram Pal. Rajesh Kumar plaintiff appeared in the witness box as P.W.1 and deposed that after the death of Ram Pal, the property left by him was owned by the defendants. Significantly, the plaintiff was not cross-examined by the defendants in this regard as no question was put to the plaintiff countering his assertion that the defendants had become owners of the property left by Ram Pal (deceased). Besides, it is well-settled that a decree can be had against the legal representatives of a deceased-debtor irrespective of the fact whether any assets of the deceased had come to the hands of his (deceased's) legal representatives. While decreeing the suit of the -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 2741 of 2009 (O&M). plaintiff, the lower appellate Court took note of the fact that in the Jamabandi for the year 2002-2003, which the learned counsel for the plaintiff had brought to the notice of the lower appellate Court during the course of arguments, Ram Pal (deceased) was recorded owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 180 Kanals situated in the revenue estate of Village Nehra, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. The defendants-appellants must have inherited the aforesaid land of the deceased. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by the first Appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. However, the plaintiff will be entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- advanced to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants- appellants by the plaintiff, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, till the amount is realized from the defendants- appellants, and not at the rate of 24 per cent per annum as claimed by him (plaintiff) in the suit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) February 11, 2011. JUDGE ak