RSA No.742 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.742 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.05.2010. Rajinder Singh .……Appellant Versus Balwant Singh ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. S. S. Rangi, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Rajinder Singh defendant has filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Respondent Balwant Singh filed suit against defendant- appellant alleging that the defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.07.2003 and agreed to repay the same with interest thereon at the rate of 2% per month, but the defendant failed to pay any amount. The plaintiff accordingly claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs.52,000/- as interest for pre-suit period at the agreed rate of 2% per annum from 20.07.2003 till 20.08.2004. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.2,52,000/-. The plaintiff also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating his 1/7th share in the land described in the head note of the plaint so as to defeat the right of the plaintiff. The defendant in his written statement denied the plaint allegations. The defendant alleged that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor signed any pronote or receipt, and same RSA No.742 of 2010 -2- are false and fabricated documents and result of fraud and misrepresentation. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna vide judgment and decree dated 01.09.2008 partly decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- with simple interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from 20.07.2003 (date of pronote and receipt) till filing of suit and simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount from the date of filing of suit till recovery. The defendant was also restrained from alienating his 1/7th share in the land in question until claim of plaintiff is satisfied. First appeal preferred by the defendant stands dismissed by learned District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 17.08.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there are contradictions in the statements of the plaintiff and his witnesses. However, the said contradictions have been duly considered by the Courts below, but inspite thereof, both the Courts below have come to concurrent finding in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. It may be added that the plaintiff himself appeared in the witness-box and has examined both the witnesses of pronote-cum-receipt. On the other hand, defendant in his written statement denied all the allegations of the plaintiff and pleaded that the documents are forged and fabricated and obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. However, in the witness-box, the defendant RSA No.742 of 2010 -3- admitted his signatures on pronote and receipt in question. Faced with this situation, the defendant came out with a new explanation that he had signed the pronote and receipt while the same were blank. However, no such plea was taken by the defendant in his written statement and, therefore, his aforesaid explanation has been rightly discarded by the Courts below being completely beyond pleadings. The defendant by admitting his signatures on pronote and receipt has materially admitted the plaintiff's case. The onus then shifted to the defendant to prove that the pronote and receipt were blank when signed and were without consideration. The defendant has, however, misreably failed to do so. The defendant examined one Harminder Singh, but only his examination-in-chief was recorded and he was subsequently given up. The defendant himself appeared in the witness box and examined his own brother Karnal Singh. However, Karnal Singh entered into the witness-box with determination to deny everything. In cross-examination, he even denied the signatures of defendant on vakalatnama, written statement, reply to notice and other pleadings on record. The testimony of such a witness cannot be relied on. Defendant's own statement is beyond the pleadings. On the other hand, the defendant has admitted his signatures on pronote and receipt. The defendant had no other dealings with the plaintiff, although the defendant alleged that he had dealings with Avtar Singh, who is one of the witnesses of pronote-cum-receipt. There was no occasion for the defendant to have signed the blank pronote and receipt. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have come to concurrent finding of fact that the defendant borrowed RSA No.742 of 2010 -4- Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt for the same. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant pointed out that permanent injunction has been granted regarding landed property of the defendant. However, the said injunction is till satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim under the decree. The defendant cannot be permitted to alienate his land so as to defeat the rights of the plaintiff under the decree. The defendant may alienate his land after satisfying the decree. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 10.05.2010. A. Kaundal