Regular Second Appeal No. 2335 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2335 of 2010 Date of decision : March 11, 2011 Bhupi ....Appellant versus Kulwinder Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) By this common judgment, I am disposing of two appeals i.e. RSA No. 2335 of 2010, titled Bhupi versus Kulwinder Singh and RSA No. 3301 of 2010, titled Mohammad Sadiq versus Kulwinder Singh. These appeals have arisen out of different suits both instituted by Kulwinder Singh respondent against Bhupi (appellant in RSA No. 2335 of 2010) and against her son Mohammad Sadiq (appellant in RSA No. 3301 of 2010). However, for convenience facts from RSA No. 2335 of 2010 are being referred. Defendant Bhupi having lost in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Suit was filed by respondent Kulwinder Singh against the Regular Second Appeal No. 2335 of 2010 -2- appellant for recovery of Rs 42,800/- alleging that the defendant on 15.6.2004 borrowed Rs 40,000/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt for the same and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 12% per annum but the defendant failed to pay anything towards principal or interest. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought recovery of principal amount of Rs 40,000/- and interest amount of Rs 2800/-. The defendant alleged that there was money dispute between the plaintiff and defendant's son Mohammad Sadiq. The plaintiff was claiming Rs 26,000/- from defendant's son but the defendant's son worked out it to be Rs 15,000/- being due from him to the plaintiff. The matter was taken to police. In the presence of respectables, compromise was effected and as per compromise, defendant's son took special oath and also paid Rs 15,000/- to the plaintiff and nothing remained due from defendant or her son. Plaint allegations were broadly denied. It was denied that defendant borrowed any amount from the plaintiff or executed any pronote and receipt. In the suit filed against Mohammad Sadiq, loan amount was alleged to be Rs 45,000/- taken on 23.5.2004. Other pleadings of both the parties are almost similar. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rupnagar vide separate judgments and decrees dated 5.12.2008 decreed both the suits for recovery of principal amounts along with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the dates of execution of pronotes and receipts till recovery. First appeals preferred by defendant of each case have been dismissed by learned District Regular Second Appeal No. 2335 of 2010 -3- Judge, Ropar vide separate judgments and decrees dated 23.1.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have filed the instant second appeals. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that plaintiff while appearing in witness box admitted his signatures on mark-B which has to be read with compromise Ex. D1 dated 10.10.2004 and in view of these documents, nothing remained due from the appellants to the plaintiff-respondent. The contention cannot be accepted. Both these documents referred to money due from Mohammad Sadiq to the plaintiff on account of some committee dispute. The said dispute was settled by these documents and Mohammad Sadiq paid Rs 15,000/- to the plaintiff and nothing remained due from Mohammad Sadiq to the plaintiff qua the said dispute. In fact, the pleadings of the defendants also reveal that the dispute was regarding calculation of due amount as defendants pleaded that Mohammad Sadiq defendant worked out the due amount to be Rs 15,000/- only. Consequently, settlement of dispute regarding due amount of committees vide documents mark-B and compromise Ex. D1 has no bearing on the amount due from the defendants on account of pronotes and receipts in question. Courts below have rightly taken this view regarding the compromise set up by the defendants. This compromise does not even remotely refer to pronotes and receipts in question. As regards pronotes and receipts in question, there is concurrent finding of both the courts below in favour of plaintiff- Regular Second Appeal No. 2335 of 2010 -4- respondent. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is supported by reasons recorded by the courts below. The plaintiff besides himself appearing in the witness box has also examined Narinder Singh one of the attesting witnesses of the pronotes and receipts in question. He has supported plaintiff's case. Defendants had no enmity with Narinder Singh PW2. Plaintiff's evidence has been found to be cogent and reliable by both the courts below. Finding of the courts below regarding pronotes and receipts in question is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, said finding does not call for interference in second appeal nor it gives rise to any question of law much less substantial question of law for adjudication in the instant second appeals. On the contrary, the defendants pleaded that the alleged compromise took place in the presence of Sarpanches of both villages i.e. villages of the parties. However, neither of the said Sarpanches has been examined as witness by the defendants in support of their case. On the contrary, as noticed hereinbefore the said compromise related to some other dispute of committee amount as is manifest from the documents produced by the defendants themselves in their evidence. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 11, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'