RSA No.3306 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3306 of 2007 Date of decision: 17.3.2010 Beant Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Jaskaranjit Kaur Sandhu and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Lower Appellate Court whereby appeal filed by the defendant-respondents was accepted against the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the decree passed in favour of the appellant for recovery was set aside and suit of the plaintiff-appellant was ordered to be dismissed. As per the averments made in the suit, the plaintiff-appellant who is father-in-law of respondent No.1 alleged that respondent No.2 -Amarjit Singh, who is the real uncle of respondent No.1, came with a proposal for the marriage of his niece who was settled in Canada and the marriage between Gurmeet Singh, his son, and Jaskaranjit Kaur- respondent No.1 was settled. As per the settlement, the marriage expenses were to be borne by the plaintiff-appellant and he was to give gold ornaments weighing 10 tolas and some good silk clothes to respondent No.1 and was to pay in cash a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- at the time of registration of the marriage. After the marriage, Gurmeet Singh was to RSA No.3306 of 2007 2 shift to Canada to reside with respondent No.1. It was alleged that the appellant arranged a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and the marriage between Gurmeet Singh and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 26.12.1994. After the registration of marriage, the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as agreed, was given to respondents No.1 and 2. The respondents promised that on reaching Canada, they would make necessary arrangement for calling Gurmeet Singh to Canada within a year. The defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 went away to Canada but later on did not call Gurmeet Singh son of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was cheated of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, the present suit for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- with costs and interest was filed. The suit was contested by the respondents. Marriage of respondent No.1 with Gurmeet Singh, son of the plaintiff was admitted. However, receipt of any amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and gold ornaments was denied. It was denied that Gurmeet Singh was to be called to Canada for settlement. It was further contended that in fact after the marriage, respondent No.1 wanted to settle in India with Gurmeet Singh, son of the plaintiff Beant Singh but the appellant stopped her from coming to India and stated that Gurmeet Singh should be called to Canada for employment as there were better prospects for him in Canada. For that purpose, Gurmeet Singh was called in the embassy for interview but he could not get through the interview and therefore, he was denied visa. It was further contended by the respondents that respondent No.1 was always ready and willing to settle with Gurmeet Singh in India or in Canada as per the liking of the plaintiff-appellant. Denying their liability to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the plaintiff, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering their evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and RSA No.3306 of 2007 3 decree dated 2.8.2005 for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum w.e.f. 28.12.1994 till its realization against respondents No.1 and 2. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, respondents No.1 and 2 filed an appeal which was accepted by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 11.5.2007. Resultantly decree of the trial Court was set aside and suit of the plaintiff-appellant dismissed. While accepting the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence found that the case in hand was not a case of fraud or cheating. The Lower Appellate Court also found that the suit was time barred as the alleged amount was paid in the year 1994 whereas the suit was filed on 3.11.1998 which was beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three years. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decree. There is no evidence on record on the basis of which it can be held that any fraud was committed by the respondents with the appellant, neither there is any evidence to establish that the respondents were paid the cash amount as alleged. Even otherwise, it is the consistent stand of respondent No.1 that she was ready and willing to settle with Gurmeet Singh, son of the appellant anywhere in India or Canada, as per his likings. Admittedly, Gurmeet Singh, son of the appellant, was interviewed for grant of visa; however, he could not get through the interview and as such, was denied the visa, for which respondent No.1 cannot be blamed. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that there was any cheating/fraud committed by the respondents. There is nothing on record on the basis of which a finding of fact recorded by the Lower Appellate Court can be said RSA No.3306 of 2007 4 to be perverse which require interference while exercising powers under Section 100 of the CPC. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. March 17, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE