R. S. A. No. 189 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 189 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 22, 2010 Mohinder Singh .... Appellant Vs. Balvir Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant Mohinder Singh (since deceased) through his grandson and legal representative Sewak Singh, has filed the instant second appeal having been unsuccessful in both the courts below. Balvir Singh – respondent filed suit against the defendant alleging that the defendant on 14.06.1999, borrowed Rs.5,20,000/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt for the same and agreed to repay the same with interest thereon @ 2% per annum, but defendant did not repay the same. The plaintiff accordingly filed suit for recovery of Rs.6,76,000/- i.e. Rs.5,20,000/ as loan amount and Rs.1,56,000/- as interest thereon @ 2% per annum, from the date of loan till filing the suit. The defendant inter alia pleaded that he never took any loan, nor executed any pronote or receipt. The defendant has big land holding R. S. A. No. 189 of 2010 2 and was not in need of money. Janta Singh – son of daughter of the defendant, in connivance with plaintiff and witnesses, played fraud on the defendant and obtained his thumb impressions on blank pronote and receipt on the pretext of becoming a witness thereto. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul, vide judgment and decree dated 20.05.2003, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.5,98,000/- i.e. Rs.5,20,000/- as loan amount and Rs.78,000/- as interest thereon @ 1% per month from the date of loan till filing of the suit. The plaintiff has also been awarded interest on the decretal amount @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant through his legal representative has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the defendant, being a rich landlord, had no necessity to borrow any amount from the plaintiff at the fag end of his life being an old person. The contention cannot be accepted. It is not uncommon that even big landlords and rich farmers also raise loans from Banks as well as from Commission Agents and other persons. In the instant case, both the courts below have appreciated the evidence led by the parties and have arrived at concurrent finding of fact against the defendant. The aforesaid contention, therefore, cannot be accepted in the instant second appeal. In addition to the aforesaid, the defendant has admitted his thumb impressions on the pronote and receipt. His plea that he thumb R. S. A. No. 189 of 2010 3 marked the same as witness, at the instance of his daughter's son, cannot be accepted because even a rustic farmer knows that thumb impressions or signatures are affixed on revenue stamp to acknowledge receipt of some amount. The thumb impressions of defendant appear on revenue stamps on the pronote and the receipt. Consequently, it cannot be said that the defendant thumb marked the pronote and receipt as witness and not as executant thereof. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The courts below have recorded well reasoned judgments based on appreciation of evidence. Findings of the courts below cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. January 22, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE