R.S.A.No. Of 4925 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. Of 4925 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.12.2009 Bhupinder Kaur ......Appellant Versus Baljit Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.A.S.Cheema, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery, which was decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Moga vide judgment and decree dated 1.10.2008. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Moga vide judgment and decree dated 12.6.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 to 4 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Baljit Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 68,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated: 13.2.2001 along with future interest at the rate of 1% per month from the date of suit till realization against R.S.A.No. Of 4925 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Bhupinder Kaur. 3. The plaintiff, in his plaint submitted that the defendant approached the plaintiff on 13.2.2001 for a loan of Rs. 50,000/-. On her request he advanced a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 13.2.2001 and she executed pronote and receipt in his favour in the present of marginal witnesses. The loan amount was received in case by the defendant for domestic purpose. The defendant had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1 % per month on the borrowed amount. The defendant has failed to pay the principal amount or the interest despite repeated requests. A legal notice dated:15.12.2003 was also served on the defendant. She gave reply through her counsel vide reply dated: 21.1.2004. Ultimately, the plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery. 4. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant, who appeared in the court and filed her written statement taking preliminary objections that the plaintiff has concealed material facts from the court. He has not come to the court with clean hands. The pronote and receipt are without consideration. The plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the case. On the merits of the case, it is submitted that Dalip Singh father of the plaintiff sold 10 marlas of property. Out of khasra No. 428 R.S.A.No. Of 4925 of 2009 (O&M) 3 situated on the area of village Rauke Kalan vide writing dated 5.11.1971 to Sukhdev Singh son of Malkiat Singh. The mutation of sale was not entered or sanctioned. The plaintiff got the mutation of inheritance of the said property along with other property of Dalip Singh on the basis of one unregistered will. The property was sold by him in her favour on 13.2.2001 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- but with mutual consent in the sale deed the sale consideration was shown as Rs. 16,500/-. At the time of execution of dispute pronote and receipt it was agreed between the partis that in case the said ten marlas remained with the defendant, the balance amount of Rs. 33,500/- will be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Now the defendant has got received anything from the property. Therefore, she is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. Rather the plaintiff is legally bound to pay Rs. 16,500/- to the defendant regarding the sale consideration of sale deed dated: 13.2.2001. Said Sukhdev Singh also filed a suit against the plaintiff, defendant and others. Ultimately, with the intervention of the respectable a compromise was effected on 27.8.2003 according to which the defendant again executed a sale deed regarding this property in favour of Sarbjit Kaur, Paramjit Kaur daughters-in-law of said Sukhdev Singh. R.S.A.No. Of 4925 of 2009 (O&M) 4 The defendant has executed a sale deed and returned ten marlas of property vide sale deed dated: 1.9.2003. The defendant has not received any amount from the said plot. The pronote and receipt was executed as security regarding the said property. The plaintiff has failed to return Rs. 16,500/- to the defendant despite repeated demand. The suit has been filed on the basis of pronote and receipt in order to harass and pressurize her. She has never taken loan of Rs. 50,000/- for domestic use. She is having sufficient property and there was no need for her to borrrow a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff for domestic purpose. The suit has been filed with a mala fide intention to grab money from her. It is prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with costs. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1 Whether the father of the plaintiff sold 10 marlas of the property out of khasra No. 428 in the area of village Rauke Kalan, vide writing dated: 5.11.71 to Sukhdev Singh?OPD 2. Whether the plaintiff has not returned the amount of Rs. 16,500/- to the defendant?OPD 3. Relief. R.S.A.No. Of 4925 of 2009 (O&M) 5 Subsequently, following additional issue was framed on 18.9.2008:- 2A. Whether pronote and receipt in question were executed by defendant in favour of the plainiff as security?OPD. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery basing his claim on pronote and receipt dated 13.2.2001. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined PW-2 Rajinder Pal Mehta, deed writer, PW-1 Balwant Singh, attesting witness to the receipt. The plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-3. The said witnesses duly proved the execution of the pronote and receipt. The case of the defendant was that she had never taken any loan from the plaintiff. She was financially sound and there was no occasion for her to take loan from the plaintiff. Further the case of the defendant was that Dalip Singh, father of the plaintiff, had sold 10 marlas of land to Sukhdev Singh. After the death of Dalip Singh, the property was mutated in favour of Baljit Singh-plaintiff and he sold the plot vide sale deed dated 13.2.2001 Ex.D-2. She (defendant) had purchased the said property from the plaintiff. The pronote and receipt in question were executed merely by way of security. Civil litigation was pending with regard to plot purchased by the defendant and later parties entered into a compromise and she executed sale deed of 10 R.S.A.No. Of 4925 of 2009 (O&M) 6 marlas in favour of Sarabjit Kaur and Paramjit Kaur, daughters of Sukhdev Singh vide sale deed Ex.D-3. The case of the defendant was that the suit had been filed against her to pressurize her and harass her. The defendant also examined other attesting witnesses of the receipt to support her plea that, in fact, no consideration had been passed to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the pronote and receipt. Thus, the execution of the pronote and receipt is not denied by the defendant but the plea taken by the defendant that the same were executed only by way of security. However, the fact that the pronote and receipt were executed by way of security is not mentioned in the compromise Ex.D-4 dated 27.8.2003. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the documents relating to civil litigation regarding sale of plot had no concern with the pronote and receipt in question. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, have given a finding of fact that the pronote and receipt were duly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The said finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below cannot be interfered with by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE December 24, 2009 anita