R. S. A. No. 4024 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 4024 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 04, 2011 Tek Singh .... Appellant Vs. M/s Sadhu Ram and sons .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. J. S. Brar, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant Tek Singh, having failed in both the courts below, is in second appeal. This is again a case of dispute between farmer and commission agent. Large number of such cases are pouring in. Respondent-plaintiff M/s Sadhu Ram and sons filed suit against defendant-appellant Tek Singh for recovery of Rs.4,78,000/-. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant had been selling his crops along with his nephews through the plaintiff firm. Defendant had been taking amounts on credit from the plaintiff from time to time. Price of his crop sold at the shop of the R. S. A. No. 4024 of 2010 2 plaintiff was credited in his account. The account was clear up to 06.11.2001. The plaintiff alleged that on 07.11.2001, defendant borrowed Rs.2,68,000/- from the plaintiff on credit and signed requisite entry in cash book of the plaintiff. Thereafter, some odd amounts were taken by the defendant. Price of the crop sold by him was also credited in his account. Ultimately, on 21.05.2002, a sum of Rs.2,41,365/- was found outstanding against the defendant. On that day, the defendant further took amount of Rs.34,935/- from the plaintiff, thus making total balance amount of Rs.2,76,300/- as due from the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant signed entry to this effect in cash book of the plaintiff and also signed similar entry in ledger and the defendant himself had written in the ledger that the said amount of Rs.2,76,300/- was due. The defendant also executed pronote and receipt dated 21.05.2002 for the said amount and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 2% per month. Thereafter also, some amounts were borrowed by the defendant and some crop was sold by the defendant and his nephews and after accounting for the same, principal sum of Rs.3,00,750/- remained outstanding as on 31.03.2003. The plaintiff claimed Rs.1,77,250/- as interest @ 2% per month since due dates till the filing of the suit. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.4,78,000/-. The defendant admitted that he had been selling his crops R. S. A. No. 4024 of 2010 3 through the plaintiff. The defendant inter alia pleaded that he and his brother Harnek Singh sold 25 kanals 08 marlas land for Rs.4,16,500/- to Kaushalya Devi etc. vide sale deed dated 20.08.1998. Account of defendant's brother Harnek Singh was cleared with the plaintiff and thereafter, Harnek Singh discontinued his dealing with the plaintiff. The defendant deposited half sale consideration of his share i.e. Rs.2,08,250/- with the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to pay interest @ 1% per month thereon. Plaintiff used to obtain signatures of defendant on blank printed forms and in account books on the pretext that the same were to be produced in Market Committee. The defendant repeatedly sought rendition of accounts of crop sold by him through the plaintiff, but the plaintiff put off the matter. The defendant even convened Panchayat, wherein amount of Rs.76,300/- was found due from the defendant. Signatures of defendant were obtained for the same. The defendant later on paid the said amount to the plaintiff, but plaintiff has misused the account books and pronotes bearing signatures of the defendant obtained on blank pronotes and account books. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar, vide judgment and decree dated 21.02.2009, decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.3,00,750/- with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from due date till date of decree of the trial court and future interest @ 6% per annum. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by R. S. A. No. 4024 of 2010 4 learned District Judge, Muktsar, vide judgment and decree dated 11.03.2010, except reducing pendente lite interest to 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till date of decree of the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that amount of crops sold by the defendant has been credited in the account of his nephews to the extent of half share, although the entire amount should have been credited in the account of the defendant. The contention cannot be accepted. It is the plaintiff's case that the said crop was sold jointly by defendant and his nephews and the amount was accordingly credited. Moreover, the said crop was sold on 21.04.2002. Thereafter, the defendant settled the account with the plaintiff on 21.05.2002 and admitted that amount of Rs.2,76,300/- remained due from the defendant to the plaintiff. Defendant signed entry to this effect not only in the cash book of the plaintiff, but also in the ledger and the defendant, in his own handwriting, mentioned the amount of Rs.2,76,300/- to be due from him to the plaintiff in the ledger. The defendant also executed pronote and receipt dated 21.05.2002 for the same. In view of these documents, the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that documents, R. S. A. No. 4024 of 2010 5 when produced by the plaintiff in its evidence, were objected to, but the objection was not decided. However, perusal of statements Annexure A-1 of plaintiff's Accountant Raj Kumar and Annexure A-2 of plaintiff's Partner Surinder Kumar reveals that except objecting to the documents, nature of objection was not even stated on behalf of the defendant-appellant. Counsel for defendant-appellant, on query, contended that the objection is regarding the entries of Manauti i.e. amounts shown to have been advanced for purchase of fertilizers etc. However, said amounts are of very small value i.e. Rs.400/- on 12.03.2002 and Rs.500/- on 07.05.2002. Moreover, even thereafter, the defendant settled the account with the plaintiff on 21.05.2002. Consequently, this objection also carries no weight. On the contrary, plaintiff's Partner and Accountant both have duly proved all the documents. Entries in account books and pronote and receipt fully corroborate the plaintiff's case. Relevant entries in the cash book have also been signed by the defendant. The defendant has even admitted his signatures on the said entries and on pronote and receipt even by his version in the written statement. Substantial amount of Rs.2,76,300/-, out of principal amount of Rs.3,00,750/-, was admitted to be due by the defendant on 21.05.2002 by signing entries in cash book as well as in ledger and also by writing the same in his own writing in ledger and also by executing pronote and receipt. There was no occasion for the defendant to have R. S. A. No. 4024 of 2010 6 signed blank account books and blank pronote and receipt form. Defendant's bald statement in this regard is not sufficient to prove his version. Moreover, the defendant, while signing the pronote-cum-receipt on revenue stamps, very well knew that the said pronote and receipt were being executed by him for the amount mentioned therein. This conclusion is strengthened by the entry in cash book and ledger of even date referred to herein before. In the ledger, the defendant has written in his own hand about the said amount being due from him. There is concurrent finding by both the courts below against the defendant-appellant and in favour of plaintiff-respondent. The said finding is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner so as to warrant interference in second appeal. On the contrary, no other reasonable finding can be arrived at on the basis of material on record. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 04, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE