RSA No.965 of 2011 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.965 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: 21.03.2011. Roop Singh ……Appellant Versus Nazir Singh …...Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Roop Singh-defendant, having lost in both the Courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Respondent-Nazir Singh filed suit against defendant- appellant for recovery of Rs.27500/- alleging that the defendant on 18.06.2003 borrowed Rs.20000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 2% per month and executed pronote and receipt for the same. The plaintiff, however, failed to repay the same. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed principal amount of Rs.20000/- and interest amount of Rs.7500/-. RSA No.965 of 2011 (O & M) - 2 - The defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that pronote and receipt in question have been tampered with. It was also alleged that defendant was minor at the time of said pronote and receipt and, therefore, was not competent to take loan or to execute the said documents. Some other pleas were also raised Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 29.07.2010 decreed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.20000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of pronote and receipt till date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.2010. 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 appeared in the witness box and broadly stated according to his version. The plaintiff also examined Jawahar Lal PW2, who is scribe as well as witness of the pronote-cum-receipt in question. He has also supported the plaintiff’s case. RSA No.965 of 2011 (O & M) - 3 - On the other hand, Jaswinder Kaur DW-1 and Surjit Singh DW-2, who are relatives of the defendant from maternal side, deposed that date of birth of defendant is 14.01.1986. V. B. Bhatnagar, handwriting expert DW-3 opined that revenue stamps already bearing signature of defendant have been removed from some other documents and affixed on the pronote-cum-receipt in question. The defendant himself appeared as DW-4 and broadly stated according to his version. As far as advancing of loan and execution of pronote and receipt are concerned, plaintiff has led sufficient evidence to prove the same. Plaintiff’s testimony in this regard is corroborated by independent witness Jawahar Lal PW-2. On the contrary, there is self serving testimony of the defendant himself to rebut the said evidence. Plaintiff’s evidence has been found to be cogent and reliable by the Courts below. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below in favour of the plaintiff respondent. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner. On the contrary, the said finding is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Defendant’s own evidence reveals that pronote-cum-receipt bear signatures of the defendant. Testimony of his expert witness that revenue stamps already bearing signatures of the defendant have been lifted from some other document and affixed on the pronote-cum-receipt in question is completely unreliable because even the defendant did not take any such plea in his written statement. In addition to it, there is no explanation as to RSA No.965 of 2011 (O & M) - 4 - how revenue stamps already bearing signatures of the defendant came in the hands of the plaintiff. The defendant has not pleaded that he had some other dealings with the plaintiff and had affixed signatures on some revenue stamps for execution of some other documents. Thus defendant’s evidence in the form of testimony of the expert is completely unacceptable. On the contrary, the fact that the revenue stamps affixed on pronote and receipt bear signatures of the defendant as per his own evidence further corroborates the plaintiff’s evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that pronote-cum-receipt does not bear signatures of Jawahar Lal PW-2 and only his name and address has been written. The contention is misconceived because it was Jawahar Lal, who scribed the pronote- cum-receipt and he affixed his own signature and has also written his father’s name and address. He has specifically stated that the pronote-cum-receipt bear his signatures. He even identified the same while appearing in the witness box. Consequently, it cannot be said that pronote-cum-receipt has not been signed by Jawahar Lal. Another plea taken by the defendant is that he was minor at the time of execution of pronote and receipt in question, his date of birth being 14.01.1986. However, the defendant admitted that entry regarding birth is made in the register of Chowkidar in the village and the said record is available with the Chowkidar. However, no such record have been proved in evidence regarding date of birth of the RSA No.965 of 2011 (O & M) - 5 - defendant-appellant. Consequently, adverse presumption arises against the defendant. Oral statements of defendant and his relatives are not sufficient to prove the date of birth of the defendant to depict his minority at the time of execution of pronote and receipt in question, in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding the date of birth of the defendant. It may be added that Surjit Singh DW-2 stated that defendant had studied upto 5th/6th standard. However, even school record has not been produced to prove date of birth of the defendant and consequently to prove his minority at the time of pronote and receipt in question. On the other hand, defendant had also executed some mortgage deed dated 03.03.2003 and sale deed dated 04.12.2003 and subsequently challenged the same on the ground of being minor at the time of execution of the said documents, but he did not succeed. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. There is concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below in favour of plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-appellant. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 21.03.2011 A.kaundal