IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2738 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 5th July, 2011 Surinder Kaur and another … Appellants Versus Jagdish Chand and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the appellants. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Regular Second Appeal No.2738 of 2011 This is defendants’ regular second appeal. A concurrent finding of fact has been returned by both the courts below that Kisan Vikas Patras purchased by the appellants by way of transfer contained fake signatures of respondent-plaintiff Jagdish Chand on the transfer document. Therefore, respondent-plaintiff Jagdish Chand was held entitled to payment of Kisan Vikas Patras. Briefly stated, it is the case of the respondent-plaintiff Jagdish Chand that he had purchased two Kisan Vikas Patras of the denomination of Rs.50,000/- each on 17th May, 1999 from the postal authorities. It is not denied that appellant No.2-defendant No.4 to the suit is holding an agency of post office for sale of Kisan Vikas Patras and various other schemes floated by the Postal Department. It was pleaded in the suit that defendant No.4 in connivance with the other officials got Regular Second Appeal No.2738 of 2011 (O&M) the certificates transferred in his name and in the name of his wife, i.e. appellant No.1-defendant No.3. An FIR was also lodged that the signatures on the transfer documents were forged, however, the investigating agency has submitted an untraced report. The postal authorities, i.e. defendants No.1 and 2 in their written statement admitted that the two Kisan Vikas Patras for an amount of Rs.50,000/- each, total amounting to Rs.1.00 lakh, were sold to the respondent-plaintiff Jagdish Chand on 17th May, 1999. They further admitted that a complaint was lodged with the Police Station City Karnal against the appellants- defendants No.3 and 4. The postal authorities further admitted that the aforesaid Kisan Vikas Patras were transferred in the name of appellants- defendants No.3 and 4 after issuance of duplicate certificates on the request of respondent-plaintiff Jagdish Chand. In the written statement filed by the present appellants- defendants No.3 and 4, they stated that they had purchased Kisan Vikas Patras from one Jagdish Chand and was paid a sale consideration of Rs.1,05,000/- on 23rd May, 2000. They further stated that they were agents of the Postal Department with a turnover of Rs.12.00 crores and had four employees to interact with the customers. The trial Court after conclusion of the pleadings had drawn the following issues: “i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD iii) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD iv) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD v) Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 2 Regular Second Appeal No.2738 of 2011 (O&M) vi) Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from the Court? OPD vii) Whether the defendants No.3 and 4 are entitled to the monetary value of Kissan Vikas Patra? OPD viii) Relief.” The trial Court after appreciating the evidence came to a conclusion that defendant No.4 during the cross-examination has categorically stated that the Kisan Vikas Patras were not sold by the plaintiff. He further failed to disclose as to from whom those Kisan Vikas Patras were purchased. It will be pertinent to mention here that no receipt of payment of the amount of Rs.1,05,000/- was brought on the record. The payment was also not made through an account payee cheque. After appraisal of the evidence, the trial Court returned the following finding: “14. … … … Furthermore, it is not disputed that the Kissan Vikas Patras were initially purchased by the plaintiff. It is further evident from the documents placed on record that the duplicate Kissan Vikas Patras were issued on the basis of fake signatures… … …” The above said finding of the trial Court has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. Thus, there is a concurrent finding that the transfer document contained forged signatures of the plaintiff. Therefore, the only inference which can be drawn is that the transfer of Kisan Vikas Patras on the name of defendants No.3 and 4 was not valid. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, has stated that the substantial question of law which arises for consideration of this Court is:- “Whether the appellants can be denied encashment of Kisan Vikas Patras which were 3 Regular Second Appeal No.2738 of 2011 (O&M) transferred on their names by the postal authorities after following its due procedure”? In support of the question of law formulated above, it has been stated in para No.10 of the grounds of appeal that there are instances and precedents that when a wrong transfer was made by the postal authorities the person in whose favour the transfer was made could not be deprived of the amount and the postal authorities were held liable for their negligence. Reliance has been placed upon an order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal, particulars whereof have been given in para No.10 of the grounds of appeal. In the ordinary course this Court may have given credence to this argument but in the present case the defendants have not produced any receipt or mode of payment by which the consideration amount was passed to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the defendants are not novice. They are the agents of Postal Department. It is the case of the plaintiff that Kisan Vikas Patras were sold to him through defendant No.4 who is an agent of the Postal Department. Once a finding has been returned by both the courts below that the transfer document was a fraudulent one, no benefit can accrue to the appellants. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court and hence, no interference is warranted in the present appeal which is hereby dismissed. Application for leading additional evidence has also been dismissed vide a separate order of even date. 4 Regular Second Appeal No.2738 of 2011 (O&M) Civil Misc. No.7413-C of 2011 This application has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC praying that the appellants be permitted to place on record the statement made by the respondent-plaintiff in his own handwriting to the postal authorities in the enquiry. In the context of the facts which have been enumerated above along with the concurrent finding returned by both the courts below, the present application cannot be accepted. The statement made by the respondent-plaintiff in an enquiry before the postal authorities is not a substantive piece of evidence but a previous statement. The appellants had got due opportunity to confront the plaintiff with his previous statement during cross-examination when witness had stepped into the witness box. It is too late in the day to take this document into consideration especially when the appellants were not diligent enough to confront the plaintiff with the statement which he had made before the authorities during the enquiry. Furthermore also, the statement is not admissible as the same was not put to the plaintiff when he was being cross-examined. Therefore, dismissal of this application is also just and appropriate. Ordered accordingly. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 5, 2011 rps 5