R.S.A. No. 2296 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2296 of 2006 Date of Decision: 17.08.2009 Sher Singh son of Jang Singh son of Mangal Singh, r/o Bhathlan, Tehsil Barnala. ... Appellant Versus 1. Manjit Kaur widow of Bhura Singh; 2. Gurdas Singh son of Bhura Singh s/o Kheeva Singh son of Lal Singh; 3. Nikka Singh minor son of Bhura Singh son of Kheeva Singh, under the guardianship of mother Manjit Kaur; all residents of Bhathlan, Tehsil Barnala, Distt. Sangrur. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Advocate, for the respondents. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal, is directed, against the judgement and decree, dated 12.04.06, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Barnala, vide which, it accepted the appeal, against the judgement and decree dated 10.02.05, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala, and dismissed the suit. R.S.A. No. 2296 of 2006 2 2. The plaintiff advanced a loan, in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, to one Bhura Singh son of Kheeva Singh husband of Manjit Kaur, defendant, and father of the other defendants, vide pronote and receipt dated 13.11.2000. Bhura Singh, undertook to repay the same alongwith interest. Bhura Singh, despite repeated requests failed to repay the amount with interest. It was stated that, after the death of Bhura Singh, his legal heirs became liable to pay the aforesaid amount with interest. The defendants, were many a time, asked to repay the amount with interest, but to no avail. On their final refusal, left with no other alternative, a suit for recovery was filed. 3. The defendants, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, they took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that no cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the suit. It was stated that since the stamps affixed on the pronote being not properly cancelled, the same was inadmissible in the eye of law, and, as such, no liability on the basis thereof could be fastened. It was further stated that Bhura Singh was a simpleton person addicted to vices and that he had been deceived by the villagers by obtaining his thumb impressions, on a number of blank papers, which were fabricated into pronotes and receipts. It was further stated that neither any amount as loan was borrowed by Bhura Singh from the plaintiff nor he executed the pronote and receipt in his favour. It was further stated that the signatures of Bhura Singh, were obtained on blank pronote and receipt under the influence of intoxicants and the same were later on converted into a valuable security. It was further stated that the pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated documents. It was further stated that the pronote was without consideration. The remaining averments R.S.A. No. 2296 of 2006 3 were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether deceased Bhura Singh s/o Kheeva Singh son of Lal Singh, r/o Bhathlan had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from plaintiff and in lieu thereof executed pronote and receipt on 13.11.2000 in favour of plaintiff? OPP (ii) Whether what rate of interest, if any, plaintiff is entitled to? OPP (iii) Whether pronote and receipt have not been properly stamped and cancelled as alleged? OPD (iv) Whether pronote and receipt is forged, fictitious and without consideration? OPD (v) Whether defendants are entitled to special costs, as alleged? OPD (vi) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record of the case, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendants/appellants, which was accepted, by the Court of Additional District Judge, Barnala, vide judgement and decree dated 12.04.06. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 8. The following substantial questions of law, arise in this appeal, for the determination of this Court:- (i) Whether the first Appellate Court, misread and misappreciated the evidence, resulting into recording of perverse findings that no legal and valid pronote and receipt were executed by Bhura Singh, predecessor in R.S.A. No. 2296 of 2006 4 interest of the defendants, in favour of the plaintiff? (ii) Whether the first Appellate Court, recorded perverse findings on account of misreading and misappreciation of evidence that the pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated documents? 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that though the execution, validity, and legality of the pronote and receipt were proved, the first Appellate Court was wrong in discarding the same, and holding that the same were forged and fabricated documents. She further submitted that the first Appellate Court, was wrong in relying upon the inadmissible evidence. He further submitted that the first Appellate Court, was also wrong in coming to the conclusion that the stamps on the pronote were not properly cancelled and hence the same was not admissible. He further submitted that the judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the first Appellate Court, taking into consideration the entire evidence in its proper perspective, came to the conclusion, that the pronote and receipt alleged to have been executed by Bhura Singh, predecessor-in- interest of the defendants, were forged and fabricated documents. He further submitted that the first Appellate Court, was also right, in coming to the conclusion that the stamps, on the pronote had not been properly cancelled, and the same could be re-used and, as such, the suit for recovery on the basis thereof could not be decreed. He further submitted that the judgement and decree, being legal and valid, were liable to be upheld. R.S.A. No. 2296 of 2006 5 12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. Subhash Kumar, PW2, is the deed writer. He is the scribe of pronote and receipt, whereas, Bhola Ram, PW3, is a marginal witness to the receipt. Through the evidence of these witnesses, the plaintiff, tried to prove the execution of pronote and receipt. It may be stated here, that the mere statements of the aforesaid witnesses that the pronote and receipt were executed by Bhura Singh, did not mean that the validity and legality of the same stood proved. Right from the very beginning, the case of the defendant namely Bhura Singh (now deceased), was to the effect, that the pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated documents. Bhura Singh, was a simpleton and addicted to intoxicants. D1 to D42, pronotes allegedly having been executed by Bhura Singh, in favour of different persons, were also produced by the defendants during the course of their evidence. Bhola R.S.A. No. 2296 of 2006 6 Ram, PW3, an attesting witness of the pronote and receipt stated, during the course of his statement that in D1 to D42, one party was the holder of the pronote, and the other party was the witness. That very witness was the holder in the other pronote and the earlier holder was the witness. The pronotes D1 to D42, had been allegedly executed for various amounts, by deceased Bhura Singh. D33 and D34, pronotes dated 29.10.2000, were cancelled. Bhola Ram, also admitted during the course of his cross- examination, that pronote dated 04.07.2000, copy whereof is D35 and the receipt, copy whereof is D36, for a sum of Rs. 2,37,000/-, were executed in his favour. He further stated that D35 and D36 were witnessed by Roop Singh and Harmail Singh. Suit on the basis of D35 and D36, was filed against Bhura Singh,which was dismissed. The amounts of D1 to D44 ran into Rs. 14,68,800/-. These pronotes related to the year 2000-01. It is evident from receipts D16, D18, and D20 that one witness in the name of Nazar Singh, signed the same, and the space under the word the other witnesses was left blank. The address of the witness on pronotes D23 and D24 was not given. So much so pronotes D31 and D32, are blank, but on the stamps the signatures of Bhura Singh, exist. All these pronotes, therefore, clearly proved that the signatures of Bhura Singh, used to be taken, on blank forms of pronotes and receipts, and later on the same used to be filled up. What for Bhura Singh, required such huge amount of Rs. 14,68,800/-, is not known. Since he was addicted to intoxicants, with a view to usurp his property, his signatures used to be obtained on blank papers. The first Appellate Court, was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion that all these documents i.e. D1 to D42, the pronotes and receipts allegedly executed by Bhura Singh, clearly revealed that actually the pronote P1 and R.S.A. No. 2296 of 2006 7 receipt P2 were not executed by him, but the same were fabricated later on by the plaintiff, in connivance with the witnesses and scribe. The finding of the first Appellate Court that the pronote P1 and receipt P2 were forged and fabricated documents and no liability on the basis thereof could be fastened are correct. 13. Not only this, even stamps on pronote P1 in this case, were not properly cancelled. The signatures of Bhura Singh were got affixed on individual stamps prior to the affixation thereof on the pronote in such a manner that the same could be reused. It was, on account of this reason that there is no writing across the stamps. According to Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting Expert there is no cancellation of stamps on the disputed pronote. According to Section 12 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, there should be due cancellation of adhesive stamps. Sub-section 2 of Section 12 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, makes it clear, that if the stamps on a document are not properly cancelled, the same is to be treated as un- stamped document. Since the stamps affixed on pronote P1, were not duly cancelled, in terms of Section 35 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, such an instrument was inadmissible into evidence, being insufficiently stamped document. No liability on the basis of such a document could be fastened. The first Appellate Court, was also right in coming to such a conclusion. 14. The findings of the first Appellate Court, on the aforesaid points, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer, from any illegality or perversity, and, therefore, warrant no interference. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, thus, being without merit, must fail,and the same stands rejected. The judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court, are liable to be upheld. The substantial R.S.A. No. 2296 of 2006 8 questions of law depicted above are, thus, answered against the appellant. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs. 17.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE