Regular Second Appeal No. 543 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 543 of 2009. (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.2.2009 *** Chand Singh .. Appellant VS. Daljit Singh .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is plaintiff's regular second appeal against the judgments and decrees dated 31.10.2007 and 8.9.2008 passed respectively by learned trial court as well as first appellate court below. The facts necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal be noticed first. The plaintiff-appellant got instituted a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant-respondent with the averments that he obtained a loan of Rs.30,000/- in the months of October-November, 2000 from the defendant and in lieu thereof he had given his tractor on rent @ Rs.150/- per day for a period of 10 months to the defendant, so that the principal amount as well as interest accrued thereupon could be adjusted. That apart, it is the case of the plaintiff that he had paid cash as well as carried out mason work at the disposal of the defendant and in totality the said loan amount has been returned and the defendant was required to return the tractor on 25.8.2003, but he did not do so and also kept with him his blank signed papers. The plaintiff sought injunction directing the defendant to hand over the tractor and to return the signed Regular Second Appeal No. 543 of 2009 2 documents. On the other hand, the stand of the defendant was that the plaintiff took the loan of Rs.30,000/- in presence of witnesses and executed pronote and receipt thereof and after calculating interest thereupon, the said amount when comes to Rs.50,000/-, the plaintiff showed his inability to return the loan amount and offered to sell his tractor for an amount of Rs.57,000/- and also took Rs.9000/- as cash, including Rs.2000/- as earnest money, so that he could clear the bank loan and hand over his tractor to him, but lateron failed to perform his part of the compromise by not executing necessary affidavit in respect of sale of tractor or hand over the original Registration Certificate of the same to him and as such he did not return the original receipt and pronote to the plaintiff. The defendant also filed counter claim and sought declaration of being in possession of the tractor as its owner and mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to hand over the RC and affidavit in respect of sale of tractor in his favour. After the contest the learned trial court, interestingly, decreed the suit as well as counter claim of the defendant by observing that the plaintiff is entitled to get back the tractor from the defendant and also held him entitled to get rent of the tractor @ Rs.75/- per day from the defendant from the date of handing over the tractor till delivery of the same for its use while the defendant was held entitled to get Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of execution of pronote and receipt till passing of the decree and further awarded future interest @6% per annum to the defendant. Aggrieved with the same, both the parties filed separate appeals before the first appellate Court below, who dealt with the same and disbelieved the theory of plaintiff of giving the tractor on rent to the defendant and dismissed the suit and while allowing the appeal of the defendant, his counter claim was ordered to be decreed by observing that it was a case of sale of tractor by the plaintiff. Hence, this regular second appeal by the plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper-book carefully. The whole dispute revolves around the tractor, on which both Regular Second Appeal No. 543 of 2009 3 the parties stake their claim. The plaintiff put forth his case of giving the same on rent to the defendant while according to the defendant he purchased the same from the plaintiff in lieu of loan given to the plaintiff, which he failed to return. Now what emerges out from the judgment passed by the learned first appellate court below is that the amount for which the said tractor was purchased by the plaintiff from its previous owner was found to be Rs.62,000/- only. If we go by the analogy of giving it on rent to the defendant @ Rs.150/- per day (though trial court assessed it at Rs.75/- per day), for a period of 10 months, as propounded by the plaintiff, the amount comes nearly to the cost of the tractor, which does not appeal to reason. Apart thereto, except his self-serving and bald statement, nothing worth was produced by the plaintiff to prove that the tractor was given on rent to the defendant as his own witness i.e. PW Jagroop Singh himself showed his ignorance about the fact that whether the plaintiff had sold tractor to the defendant or had given the same on rent to him. The other attending circumstances viz. the admission of the plaintiff of working on the fields of defendant with tractor and leaving of the same in the fields after the work and never asserted any use of force in retaining the tractor; statement of DW Bittu Singh to show that the plaintiff when failed to repay the loan amount, offered to sell the tractor and the testimony of DW Amarjit Singh about calling the plaintiff at his residence to hand over the registration certificate of the tractor to the defendant, rightly impressed the learned first court below to conclude that no prudent man ever would pay rent of the tractor which would be equivalent to its value and accordingly concluded that it was a case of sale of tractor by the plaintiff to the defendant. There is no dispute to the money transaction between the parties. The signatures of plaintiff over pronote and receipt dated 8.8.2002 are also not in dispute. Even otherwise, there is over-whelming evidence on record in the shape of testimonies of defendant himself coupled with that of attesting witness to prove due execution of pronote and receipt by the plaintiff in favour of defendant and accordingly the plaintiff was rightly directed to complete the formalities of transfer of ownership rights of the tractor in favour of the defendant. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the approach adopted by the learned first appellate Court below in Regular Second Appeal No. 543 of 2009 4 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and decreeing the counter-claim of the defendant is either illegal or perverse and based on no evidence. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 6,2009 Jiten