Regular Second Appeal No.2983 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2983 of 2010 Date of Decision:-21.7.2011 Jangir Singh ...Appellant Versus Gagandeep Kaur and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.S.K.Jain, Advocate for the appellant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that Gagandeep Kaur and Sandeep Kaur, the unfortunate minor daughters of Sukhmander Singh, respondent-plaintiffs (for brevity “the plaintiffs”), filed the suit seeking a decree for recovery of ` 2,56,970/- (`1,88,966/- as principle plus `68004/- as interest) against their grand-father Jangir Singh son of Bhan Singh appellant-defendant (for short “the defendant”). 2. The case set up by the plaintiffs, in brief in so far as relevant, was that Sukhmander Singh, their father (since deceased), had purchased two insurance policies bearing Nos.160316464 and 160786292 from Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short “the LIC”) and Jangir Singh, their grand-father, was appointed as nominee. Sukhmander Singh had expired about six years ago. Taking advantage of the minority of the plaintiffs, the defendant illegally received the amount of compensation from the LIC, vide cheques No.374621 and 254800 dated 21.8.1998. 3. Plaintiffs claimed that as per law, the nominee has got only right to Regular Second Appeal No.2983 of 2010 -2- recover the amount of compensation from any department including LIC, but the rights of legal heir are not taken away. In all, according to plaintiffs that being the legal heirs of Sukhmander Singh, they are entitled to the amount of insurance policies, which was illegally received by the defendant. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree of recovery against the defendant, in the manner indicated hereinbefore. 4. The defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, limitation, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiffs. He claimed that the plaintiffs have filed the suit with malafide intention. According to the defendant that he has already transferred his land, by way of family settlement, in favour of his sons, namely, Sukhmander Singh, Balbir Singh and Balwinder Singh. In the family settlement, Balbir Singh and Balwinder Singh gave ` 4 lacs each to him (defendant), but Sukhmander Singh did not have amount in cash and he made commitment to give ` 4 lacs of his share and on that account, he was appointed as nominee in the insurance policies. He has rightly received the amount. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiffs and other LRs of Sukhmander Singh have no right to receive the amount of insurance policies. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication of the case :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit amount with interest, if so, to what extent ?OPP 2. Relief. 6. In order to substantiate their respective pleaded stands, the parties to the lis, produced on record the oral as well as documentary evidence. 7. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence on Regular Second Appeal No.2983 of 2010 -3- record, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of ` 1,88,966/- against the defendant with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 20.3.2009. 8. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendant filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 26.11.2009. 9. The appellant-defendant still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and the decrees of the Courts below and filed the present appeal. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. 11. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since as per the family settlement, the defendant was entitled to receive the amount of ` 4 lacs from his son Sukhmander Singh, father of the plaintiffs, so, the Courts below committed a legal mistake in decreeing their (plaintiffs) suit, sans merit. 12. As is evident from the record that there is no dispute in regard to relationship between the parties and the amount of insurance policies. The concocted version put forth by the defendant that Sukhmander Singh, father of plaintiffs, promised him to pay ` 4 lacs in the wake of family settlement, has already been disbelieved by the Courts below. Moreover, no cogent evidence is forth coming on record, to prove the family settlement, as urged on behalf of the defendant. The mere fact that the defendant was appointed as nominee, ipso facto, is not a valid ground to deny the legal right of plaintiffs, emanating from the natural succession. 13. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire material on record, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 20.3.2009. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the first Appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment dated 26.11.2009, the Regular Second Appeal No.2983 of 2010 -4- operative part of which is (para 22) as under:- “The plaintiffs have a vested legal right and they can exercise the same at any time. The defendant appellant has pleaded the payment, but he has neither produced any receipt showing the payment of money to the plaintiffs or their mother, nor he has produced or got produced the bank accounts of the plaintiffs and their mother to show that the money, if orally paid and is unlikely to be kept at home in cash, was deposited by them in their bank account. The oral assertion of the payment cannot be accepted and, therefore, I find that the trial court has rightly concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled to one half share of the amount of the insurance policies. Accordingly, the findings of the trial Court on issue No.1 are affirmed.” 14. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties, in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, both the courts below have recorded the above-mentioned concurrent findings of fact. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this behalf. 15. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to assail the findings of the Courts below in this regard. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant, in this relevant direction, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 16. In this manner, the entire matter revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, Regular Second Appeal No.2983 of 2010 -5- is involved, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749 in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 17. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 18. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 21.7.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No