RSA No.847 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.847 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 4, 2011 Kiranjit Kaur .....Appellant v. Surinder Kaur and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present suit for recovery of `2,54,000/-, i.e., `2,00,000/- as principal and `54,000/- as interest from 12.2.2003 to 11.5.2005 was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff against present appellant and Kulwinder Singh, husband of present appellant on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 12.2.2003 allegedly executed by Kulwinder Singh in favour of respondent- plaintiff. Relief for declaration to the effect that sale deed no.31 dated 9.4.2003 in respect of suit property measuring 7 bigha 19 biswas, duly described in the head-note of the plaint, as per jamabandi for the year 1998- 99, vide which defendant no.1 sold the said land in favour of defendant no.2 is liable to be set aside as the same is the result of fraud and was executed to defeat rights of plaintiff/creditor to recover the disputed amount, was also sought. Suit was contested by Kulwinder Singh-respondent-defendant no.1 by filing written statement by denying having received any alleged amount of `2 lacs. Plea was taken that alleged pronote and receipts are fabricated documents. Plea was also taken that he had borrowed a sum of RSA No.847 of 2011(O&M) -2- `30 lacs from father of present appellant for running a commission agent shop, which he could not return and that as his relation with present appellant became strained, which also culminated into divorce on 17.1.2003, he transferred land measuring 57 bigas 10 biswas in lieu of the said amount at the instance of her father. Plea has also been taken that appellant was not wife of defendant no.1 on the said date of execution of the sale deed as they had already taken mutual divorce. Present appellant also filed written statement by taking the plea that pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents and without consideration and that there are material alterations in the pronote and receipt and the witnesses were introduced later on. She had also taken a similar plea that defendant no.1 borrowed `30 lacs from her father for the Commission Agent shop and could not return the same and hence, the land including the land in dispute was transferred in her favour by defendant no.1. Learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent- plaintiff for recovery of `2 lacs alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from 12.2.2003 till the date of actual realization and decree for declaration was also passed to the effect that sale deed dated 9.4.2003 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of present appellant is a coloured transaction entered between the defendants to delay and defeat the creditors and the same was ordered to be set aside. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree by present appellant-defendant no.2 was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, except that judgment and decree was modified to the extent that as relief has been claimed only qua 7 bighas 19 biswas, accordingly a charge is created in favour of respondent-plaintiff qua said land only and the findings of learned trial Court for setting aside RSA No.847 of 2011(O&M) -3- the sale deed in toto was modified. However, no appeal was filed by Kulwinder Singh-defendant no.1. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, the present regular second appeal was filed by appellant-defendant no.2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant no.2 that she had already taken divorce by mutual consent from Kulwinder Singh before the amount in dispute was borrowed by him from plaintiff vide pronote and receipt dated 12.2.2003 and hence, it cannot be said that sale deed in her favour is a sham transaction and hence, it is contended that both the Courts committed illegality in creating charge over the property owned by her. However, both the Courts below have on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that respondent-defendant no.1 has failed to prove that he owed any such amount of `30 lacs to father of appellant and hence it was held that the alleged sale deed is without any consideration and hence sham transaction just to defeat the right of respondent-plaintiff creditor to recover the amount borrowed by defendant no.1. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the transfer in favour of appellant by her husband-defendant no.1 was a part of compromise, pursuance of which a decree of mutual divorce was passed. However, no such plea was taken by appellant in her written statement nor any such plea was taken by her husband in the written statement. Rather plea taken by both of them was that the sale deed was executed in lieu of `30 lacs which were to be recovered from father of present appellant from Kulwinder Singh and however appellant as well as defendant no.1 failed to RSA No.847 of 2011(O&M) -4- prove the said fact. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 4.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge