R. S. A. No. 1746 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1746 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 17, 2011 Mam Chand .... Appellant Vs. Pit Ram .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 4863-C of 2011 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 4 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal : Defendant Mam Chand has filed the instant second appeal having lost in both the courts below. Plaintiff-respondent Pit Ram filed suit against defendant- appellant for recovery of Rs.56,700/- alleging that the defendant, on 06.11.1999, borrowed Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay R. S. A. No. 1746 of 2011 (O&M) 2 the same with interest @ 2% per month and executed bahi entry for the same, but the defendant did not pay the principal or interest amount. Accordingly, plaintiff claimed Rs.35,000/- as principal amount and Rs.21,700/- as interest thereon till filing of the suit. The defendant broadly denied the plaint averments. The defendant denied having borrowed Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff on 06.11.1999 or having executed any bahi entry or having thumb marked any bahi entry for the same. The defendant alleged that plaintiff did not have the resources to pay the loan amount as he had one acre land only and has a large family to support. The defendant also pleaded that plaintiff had taken six acres land of defendant on lease, for cultivation for six years, on yearly lease money of Rs.35,000/-. The plaintiff used to obtain thumb impressions of the defendant on blank papers and might have converted the same into impugned bahi entry. The plaintiff paid lease money to the defendant for four years and did not pay the same for two years. The suit has been filed to avoid payment of outstanding lease money. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri, vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2009, decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.35,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of loan i.e. 06.11.1999 till recovery. Decretal amount was ordered to be paid within two months, failing which the plaintiff was R. S. A. No. 1746 of 2011 (O&M) 3 held entitled to 9% per annum interest from the date of judgment till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, himself stepped into the witness-box and also examined Arjun Dass (PW-1), who scribed the bahi entry in question. Both of them broadly stated according to plaintiff's version that the defendant, after borrowing Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff, executed the aforesaid bahi entry. The plaintiff has also examined finger- print expert, who has opined that disputed thumb impression of the defendant on the bahi entry matches with his specimen/standard thumb impression. On the other hand, defendant himself stepped into the witness- box and broadly stated according to his own version. Plaintiff has led cogent evidence to prove his case. His testimony is corroborated by testimony of scribe of the bahi entry in question. Thumb impression of the defendant on the bahi entry is proved from their statements and also from the testimony of the finger-print expert. Science of comparison of finger prints is a perfect science. Defendant has not examined any finger-print expert to rebut the testimony of finger-print R. S. A. No. 1746 of 2011 (O&M) 4 expert examined by the plaintiff. On the contrary, the defendant has impliedly admitted his thumb impression on the bahi entry in question by his pleading in the written statement. Defendant's sole self-serving oral statement is not sufficient to rebut the plaintiff's cogent evidence. There is concurrent finding by the courts below in favour of the plaintiff. The said finding is justified by the evidence on record. The defendant has not been able to rebut the cogent evidence of the plaintiff. Finding recorded by the lower courts is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. This second appeal does not raise any question of law, much less substantial question of law, for determination. On the contrary, fate of the lis depends on finding of fact, for which lower appellate court is the final Court. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that plaintiff has admitted that he had taken defendant's land on lease. However, it is beyond comprehension as to how this circumstance helps the appellant or goes against the plaintiff-respondent. On the contrary, it would simply depict truthfulness of the testimony of the plaintiff, who frankly conceded that he had taken the defendant's land on lease. Moreover, since plaintiff was cultivating six acres of defendant's land on lease, it cannot be said that he had no resources to advance loan amount to the defendant. R. S. A. No. 1746 of 2011 (O&M) 5 In the aforesaid context, it is also significant to notice that the defendant's version is that plaintiff had not paid lease money to the defendant for two years, but admittedly, the defendant did not take any step whatsoever for recovery of the said amount. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 17, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE