R.S.A. No. 1012 of 1990 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1012 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.02.2009 Surjit Singh ....Appellant Versus Gurbachan Kaur ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.3.1990 passed by the learned lower appellate Court vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for recovery of Rs.13,500/- on the basis of a pronote has been ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff/appellant brought a suit on the plea that on 15.9.1978, the defendant took cash loan of Rs.10,000/- from him on interest @ 1.56% per mensem in village Chehlan Wala and executed pronote and receipt in his favour. The pronote and receipt were said to have been read over to the defendant, who put his signatures in Punjabi script admitting the same to be correct. The transaction was said to have taken place in presence of witnesses, who marked their presence as R.S.A. No. 1012 of 1990 (O&M) -2- attesting witnesses. The plaintiff pleaded that he claimed interest @ 1% instead of agreed rate of 1.56%. In the written statement, the defendant/respondent denied the execution of pronote or having received any loan. It was claimed that the receipt and pronote were forged documents prepared by the plaintiff/appellant in connivance with the witnesses. The defendant also raised a plea that the suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the suit was not within time. The cause of action to file the suit was also questioned. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff/appellant was tenant under her and was cultivating 108 kanals 6 marlas of her land. It was also the case set up by the defendant that the plaintiff wanted to grab her property. About two years prior to filing of suit, a complaint was filed by defendant/respondent against the plaintiff in police station, as also two ejectment applications, which were pending in the Court of Assistant Collector, Second Grade, Mansa. The defendant also pleaded that she was a pensioner and possesses huge property in village Rala and Chehlan Wala, Teh. Mansa and village Deena, District Faridkot. Her one son was Major in Army and other son was in the Air Force and her daugher was married for last 25 years and, therefore, she had no liability for last six years to meet by getting any loan, as alleged. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: - “1. Whether the defendant executed a pronote and receipt on 15.9.1978? OPD 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the pronote was without consideration? OPD R.S.A. No. 1012 of 1990 (O&M) -3- 3. Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not within limitation? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit? OPD 6. Relief.” The learned trial Court believed the statement of Mohinder Singh, attesting witness and that of plaintiff/appellant and recorded a finding that the defendant/respondent executed a pronote and receipt dated 15.9.1978. On issue No. 2, the learned trial Court was pleased to hold that execution of pronote presumes that it was for consideration, therefore, the issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. Failure of the respondent/defendant to lead any evidence as to how the suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, issue No. 3 was decided against the defendant/respondent and the suit was held to be within limitation. The learned trial Court also held that the plaintiff had locus standi to file the suit. Consequently the suit was decreed. The respondent/defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The learned lower appellate Court has been pleased to reverse the findings by holding as under: - “I have gone through the evidence produced by the parties. According to the statement of the appellant DW1 Gurbachan Kaur the respondent is her tenant. He wanted to grab her land. Therefore, she filed a suit for ejectment and for arrears of lease amount in the revenue Court. Both those suits were decreed in her R.S.A. No. 1012 of 1990 (O&M) -4- favour. She filed suit for the recovery of arrears for three years and execution application regarding the same is pending in Court. She was a teacher. She is getting pension. Her two sons are alive, one of whom is Colonel in the Army and the other is Warrant Officer in Air Force. Her daughter is working as Head Mistress. She never borrowed any amount from the respondent. The pronote and the receipt are forged documents. Pronote Ex. P1 and receipt Ex. P2 are not signed by her. The respondent never gave any notice to her before filing the present suit. In her cross-examination she stated that she filed an application under section 107 Cr.P.C. in PS Jorkian against the plaintiff- respondent. The pronotes were not shown to her by the respondent in the police station nor she admitted the execution of the pronote. In fact she never appeared in PS Jorkian. DW3 Dewan KS Puri, Document Expert, compared the dispute signatures on the pronote and the receipt. According to his opinion the disputed signatures were not in the handwriting of the person who wrote the specimen signatures. The disputed signatures are forged one. The respondent examined Mohinder Singh PW2 to prove the execution of the pronote and the receipt. According to the statement of Mohinder Singh the appellant Gurbachan Kaur borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the respondent and she executed pronote Ex. P1 and receipt Ex. P2 in his favour. After admitting the contents to be correct she signed the pronote and the receipt in his presence. In his cross-examination he admitted that the other attesting witness was Bhura Singh. He further admitted that he is from the family of Surjit Singh respondent. On receipt Ex. P2 the name of the attesting witness is Bhura Singh s/o Sucha Singh. R.S.A. No. 1012 of 1990 (O&M) -5- The name of his village is not mentioned on the receipt. Similarly Mohinder Singh has described himself as Mohinder Singh s/o Dalbara Singh without mentioning the name of the village. He has only scribed the pronote and the receipt as he has written the words “Likhat Keeti, Mohinder Singh s/o Dalbara Singh” on the receipt. He has not signed the pronote as an attesting witness. Bhura Singh was not produced to prove the receipt executed by Gurbachan Kaur. Surjit Singh respondent also filed another suit for the recovery of Rs. 15,000/- against Gurbachan Kaur on the basis of another pronote dated 11.8.1977 allegedly executed in his favour by Gurbachan Kaur the present appellant. That suit was dismissed by Shri O.P. Dharwal, then Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide judgement Ex.DX. In that suit also Bhura Singh was attesting witness of the pronote. Bhura Singh is admittedly relation of the respondent-plaintiff. It was held in the judgement Ex. DX by the learned Addl. District Judge that Gurbachan Kaur was financially well-placed she being a Government pensioner and having landed property and had two sons employed as officers in Air Force & Army. So she was not in need of money. The suit of Surjit Singh was dismissed on the ground that the pronote and the receipt was not genuine. Statement of ASI Basant Singh PW3 cannot also be held to be worthy of credence because he has only stated that he investigated the application of Gurbachan Kaur on 25.03.80. Two pronotes for the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and the other for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- were shown to the appellant but it is not there in the statement of Basant Singh, ASI that the appellant admitted the execution of the pronote and the receipt in the police station. According to the statement of DW1 R.S.A. No. 1012 of 1990 (O&M) -6- she never visited the police station. She only filed application. Gurbachan Kaur never gave statement in Court that she admitted having executed the pronote in favour of the respondent. Suit regarding the other pronote of Rs. 15,000/- had already been dismissed by the Courts. The respondent has note gone in appeal against the order of Sh. O.P. Dharwal, Addl. District Judge, Bhatinda. That judgement has become final between the parties. The appellant denied her signatures on the pronote and the receipt. It was for the respondent-plaintiff to prove that the pronote and the receipt are signed by her. He has failed to discharge the onus. Rather, it has come in the evidence of Sh. KS Puri that signatures on the pronote Ex. P1 and receipt Ex. P2 are forged. The opinion of J.S. Singla is not reliable as he has stated in his report Ex. PW4/A that he has completed full course of international criminology School, Washington, USA through correspondence. He did not mention his other qualifications. He has only stated that he has taken practical training from Sh. M.L. Singla, Handwriting & Finger Print Expert, Narwana, who is not proved to be an Authority on the subject, whereas Dewan KS Puri is a Document Expert of long standing having proper qualification. He is consulting expert for the Government of Rajasthan. He is visiting professor in teaching for Handwriting & Finger Prints to the Government Central Police College of Tiwan. He has published number of papers on handwriting and finger prints in India & abroad. So the opinion given by Dewan KS Puri is more reliable than that of the opinion given by JC Singla. It is also proved that the appellant was working as a teacher. She is pensioner. Her two sons are in the Army & Air Force. She owns R.S.A. No. 1012 of 1990 (O&M) -7- landed property. She had no liability to raise loan. As per statement of Surjit Singh, he was in arrears of rent prior to the alleged execution of pronotes. So the appellant could not have raised loan from Surjit Singh, who was her tenant. Scribe of the pronote is relation of the respondent. Bhura Singh the other attesting witness is also relation of Surjit Singh. Still he was not produced at the trial. Name of the village of both the scribe and Bhura Singh are not mentioned on the pronote and receipt. All these facts go to show that Gurbachan Kaur did not execute the pronote or the receipt nor she signed the same. The signatures on the pronote and the receipt are forged. I have also compared the same to my mind, the signatures differ in basic characteristics. I reverse the findings of the trial Court on issues No. 1 & 2. Issues No. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the appellant against the respondent.” The learned counsel for the appellant raised the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court: - “Whether in view of the evidence produced on record showing the execution of pronote and receipt, the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court is to be treated to be outcome of misreading of evidence thus perverse?” The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned trial Court had rightly held that the execution of pronote was proved, as the plaintiff besides appearing in the witness box had examined attesting witnesses. The finding recorded thus, was liable to be upheld. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the finding recorded by the learned lower appellate Court, referred to R.S.A. No. 1012 of 1990 (O&M) -8- above, is perverse, as the attesting witness has been wrongly disbelieved merely because he was relation of the appellant/plaintiff. However, on consideration of matter, I find that no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Though the attesing witness was produced, it would be clear from the finding recorded by the learned lower appellate Court that defendant/respondent examined Sh. K.S. Puri, who opined that the pronote and receipt were forged documents, as the same were not signed by the defendant/respondent. It would be seen that the finding of fact has been rightly recorded by the learned lower appellate Court. The evidence brought on record did not prove that any loan was advanced by the plaintiff/appellant or that any pronote was executed by the defendant/respondent in consideration of the said loan. The substantial question of law, therefore, is answered against the appellant. The judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court cannot be said to be outcome of misreading of evidence or perverse, rather the learned lower appellate Court, on appreciation of evidence, has rightly reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. For the reasons stated, the appeal is ordered to be dismissed, but with not order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 05, 2009 R.S.