IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.3714 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:30.11.2010 Sanju Devi and another .....Appellants Vs. Sadhu Ram and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. The appellants are the legal representatives of defendant Prem Singh and have challenged the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit for recovery filed by the plaintiffs- respondents against defendant Prem Singh was decreed. As per averments made in the civil suit, defendant Prem Singh (predecessor-in-interest of the appellant and respondents No.4 and 5) induced the plaintiffs/ respondents to pay money to him for sending their wards/ sons to the foreign land on jobs. It is further alleged in the suit that the plaintiffs/ respondents paid the amount as mentioned in the suit to defendant Prem Singh for getting jobs to their sons/ wards which was promised in some foreign company in Germany. It is further case of the plaintiffs- respondents that on 14.12.1995 defendant Prem Singh took along with him the sons of the plaintiffs- respondents to Delhi Airport and told R.S.A. No.3714 of 2010 (O&M) -2- them to wait at the Airport of KEEV in Ukraine (foreign land) and, thereafter, the boys waited for said defendant Prem Singh at the aforesaid Airport but defendant never reached there and these boys were put into great trouble. The said boys faced a number of problems and came back to India after five months. On their arrival, the plaintiffs demanded their money back. Defendant Prem Singh issued them cheques of the total amount of Rs.10,10,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Ladwa Branch with a promise that the same would be encahsed on presentation. He had also promised to pay the balance amount of Rs.90,000/- in cash within a few days. When the plaintiffs- respondents presented the cheques for encashment, they came to know that there was no amount in the said account, thereafter, the matter was reported to the police. Since the defendant failed to repay the amount, the present suit was filed. The suit was contested by Prem Singh defendant raising various legal objections. On merits, it was pleaded that alleged cheques were forged and fabricated and the same were prepared by the plaintiffs- respondents in collusion with the police to harass him. It was further pleaded that the said cheques were obtained by the plaintiffs- respondents under police pressure. It was further pleaded that defendant Prem Singh never visited the house of the plaintiffs- respondents. They never paid any amount to him. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs had contacted one Yogesh proprietor of Seritone Travels Agency, Cannaught Circus Delhi and said Yogesh might have sent the boys abroad and it was further pleaded that the defendant- respondent was falsely implicated in the suit and all other averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. On appreciation of evidence and considering the arguments R.S.A. No.3714 of 2010 (O&M) -3- raised by learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court found that the cheques were issued by the defendant- Prem Singh and, thus presumption was in favour of the plaintiffs- respondents under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that these cheques same were issued for consideration. The plea of deceased – defendant Prem Singh regarding the cheques in question that his signatures were obtained by calling him in the police station could not be proved for want of any evidence and thus the suit was decreed with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of issue of cheques till the date of passing of the judgment and decree of the trial Court with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, on an appeal, the lower appellate court while upholding the findings of the trial Court on all issues, reduced the interest and directed that interest shall be paid at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation. It may also be noticed that while dismissing the appeal, the lower appellate court has also observed that recovery of the decretal amount may be effected from the property, if any, left behind by deceased defendant Prem Singh and the appellants (LRs of defendant Prem Singh) shall not be personally liable to pay the same from their own assets. Still not satisfied, the appellants, who are the LRs of defendant Prem Singh have approached this Court by way of instant appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently argued that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below cannot be sustained as there is no evidence that the amount in question was ever paid to defendant Prem Singh by plaintiffs-respondents and thus the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal:- R.S.A. No.3714 of 2010 (O&M) -4- “Whether the findings of the Courts below are perverse?” I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and decree. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is liable to be rejected. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the cheques in question were admittedly issued by the defendant Prem Singh and his plea that the aforesaid cheques were issued by him under police pressure could not be proved from any evidence on record, it could not be disputed before this Court that there is a presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that a cheque is issued for a consideration. Though the aforesaid presumption is rebuttable, however, there is no evidence on record to controvert the aforesaid presumption. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. November 30, 2010 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) renu JUDGE