R.S.A. No. 3169 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3169 of 2008 & C.M. No. 9428-C of 2008 Date of Decision : 20.5.2009 Inderjit Kaur & another .......... Appellants Versus Harmel Kaur & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Munish Raj, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate for respondents No. 4 & 5. Mr. R.S. Bhatia, Advocate for respondent No.6. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.3.2008 passed by the learned lower appellate Court vide which suit filed by the plaintiff / respondent No.1 for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac only), stands decreed. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- R.S.A. No. 3169 of 2008 2 (Rupees two lac only) on the ground that Jagga Singh deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants obtained a loan of Rs. 1,60,000/- for purchase of a truck from State Bank of Patiala, which was guaranteed by the plaintiff along with her husband Budh Singh. Two other persons also stood guarantor. Shri Jagga Singh failed to repay the loan amount to the bank. On 11.6.1991 the bank filed a suit for recovery against the borrower, and all the guarantors including the plaintiff / appellant herein. In execution of the decree the land of the plaintiff was attached and auctioned. The plaintiff, therefore, entered into settlement with the bank and paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only ) as full and final settlement of decretal amount. The amount was got deposited by the plaintiff through her husband Budh Singh and receipt obtained from the bank. The plaintiff / respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the successors of Jagga Singh i.e. the appellants herein for the reason that estate of Jagga Singh stood inherited by the defendant/ appellants. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned lower appellate Court accepted the appeal and decreed the suit by holding that payment by plaintiff / respondent towards discharge of liability of late Jagga Singh stood proved. The learned lower appellate Court further held that the receipts Ex.P-5 & Ex.P-6 bear signatures of plaintiff's husband Budh Singh, showing the deposit of amount on her behalf. Ms. Sonia G. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appeal raises the following substantial question of law :- Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned R.S.A. No. 3169 of 2008 3 lower appellate Court is outcome of misreading of documentary and oral evidence, therefore, perverse ? In support of the substantial question of law the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that the learned lower appellate Court failed to notice, the order passed by the learned executing Court, wherein it has been observed that the decretal amount as agreed stood paid by the judgment debtor. The execution application was disposed of on the basis of compromise, meaning thereby that amount was paid by late Jagga Singh. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned lower appellate Court further failed to notice that the plaintiff was not present at the time of deposit of amount, as the amount was deposited by Budh Singh, who did not join in the suit with plaintiff ./ respondent, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court deserves to be set aside. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Once the bank had accepted the amount from Harmel Kaur though deposited by Budh Singh, the receipt has been duly exhibited and proved on record, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the learned lower appellate Court. The appellants also cannot be allowed to take benefit of the word used 'JD” in disposing of the execution application on the basis of compromise, as it was duly proved that the compromise was entered into R.S.A. No. 3169 of 2008 4 between the plaintiffs and bank to get released her land, which was attached and auctioned in the execution proceedings. The findings recorded by the learned lower appellate Court, on appreciation of evidence cannot be said to be outcome of misreading of evidence, as contended. The substantial question is answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. 20.5.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE