R.S.A. No.2722 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.2722 of 2008 Date of Decision:12.11.2008 Maninder Singh .....Appellant Vs. Smt. Sarabjit Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for the appellant. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. (Oral) This appeal is preferred against the judgment/ decree dated 9.4.2008 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Amritsar whereby he dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment/ decree dated 17.7.2006 rendered by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, for the recovery of Rs.80,000/- with costs together with interest. The facts which led to the filing of this suit are that the defendant approached the plaintiff for financial assistance whereupon the latter advanced a sum of Rs.80,000/- to the former vide Cheque No.319130 dated 15.2.2000, which was got encashed on 16.2.2000. The defendant failed to make repayment of this amount despite repeated demands put forth by the plaintiff apart from serving legal notice dated 14.12.2002. On these allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery. In answer to this claim, the defendant inter-alia pleaded that the impugned cheque was issued by the plaintiff towards part payment of consideration amount of the property sold by his wife Kanwaljit Kaur in favour of Baljit Kaur, wife of Rachpal Singh through the plaintiff on R.S.A. No.2722 of 2008 -2- 15.2.2000. Traversing other facts in the plaint, it has been prayed that the suit may be dismissed. The following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount as prayed for? OPP 1A) Whether the amount of Rs.80,000/- was advanced by the plaintiff to defendant by means of a cheque No.319130 of State Bank of India dated 15.2.2000 as Short Term Friendly Loan? OPP 1B) Whether suit amount of Rs.80,000/- covered by Cheque No.319130 was part of sale consideration in respect of sale deed executed by Kanwaljit Kaur in favour of Baljit Kaur? OPD 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the interest, if so, at what rate? OPP 3) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5) Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the defendant went up in appeal, which was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. Being undaunted and dissatisfied therewith, the defendant has preferred this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the defendant- appellant R.S.A. No.2722 of 2008 -3- besides perusing the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection. Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant urged with a good deal of force that it is not practically possible that on 15.2.2000 the date of execution of the sale deed, a sum of Rs.80,000/- along with other amount was given for the sale of land and on the same day, the appellant/ defendant had borrowed a friendly loan from the respondent/ plaintiff. There was no evidence on record to even suggest this fact that the loan borrowed by the appellant/ defendant was a friendly loan. It is further argued that as a matter of fact the appellant- defendant and his wife in good faith had accepted the part payment through cheque, though there is no specific recital to this effect in the sale deed. The learned Courts below have totally misread the evidence and sequelly, the impugned judgments/ decrees are liable to be set aside. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these submissions. As is borne out from the evidence on record, the cheque No.319130 dated 15.2.2000 for Rs.80,000/- issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant was got encashed by the latter. As reflected in the sale deed Ex.D.1, the entire sale proceeds have been received from the purchaser. Admittedly, there is no recital worth the name in the sale deed in relation to the cheque in dispute. If the cheque amount was meant for adjusting towards the sale proceeds, the same by all reasonableness would have been issued in favour of the vendor of the property instead of the defendant. Kanwalljit Kaur, wife of the defendant as DW2 has admitted in her cross-examination that the entire sale price was received by her from the R.S.A. No.2722 of 2008 -4- vendee Baljit Kaur. On examining the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below with sedulous care, it emerges out that the same warrants no interference. More to the point, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court in this appeal. As such, this appeal is dismissed in limine. November 12, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No