RSA No. 2112 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2112 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 26, 2009 Chhinder Kaur and others ...........Appellants Versus Ujaggar Singh ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.A.S.Jattana, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.S.S.Grewal, Advocate for the respondent ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.384375/- i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- being principal amount and Rs.84375/- being interest.The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 2.4.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal which was dismissed with modification of the interest by the Additional District Judge, Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 18.2.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment, read as under:- RSA No. 2112 of 2008 (O&M) 2 “ 2. Succinctly, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that initially, Ujjagar Singh, plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.3,84,374/- against Chhinder Kaur, Lakhwinder Singh and Jasbir Singh being legal heirs of Balbir Singh, since deceased. It is averred in the plaint that Balbir Singh, son of Teja Singh was having acquaintance with the plaintiff, as the plaintiff had been posted as teacher in Govt. High School, Sanghera for the last 30 years and had since been retired, as such. Balbir Singh, son of Teja Singh, had died on 8.6.2002. During his life time, Balbir Singh, son of Teja Singh on 15.1.2002, had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff and had executed the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. This pronote and receipt was scribed by Kartar Singh, son of Hira Singh of village Thikriwala and Harvinder Singh, son of Jarnail Singh and Bharpur Singh, son of Harchand Singh, residents of Thikriwala were also present at that time. Balbir Singh, son of Teja Singh, deceased had agreed to pay interest @ Rs.150% per month. After scribing of the pronote and receipt, it was read over to Balbir Singh, who after understanding the contents thereof, had signed both on the pronote and receipt at various places. Even the witnesses, had signed the pronote and receipt in the presence of Balbir Singh. During his life time, Balbir Singh had failed to make the payment of the outstanding amount, despite demands having been raised. After his death, the mutation of his land stands sanctioned in favour of the defendants vide mutation No.14968. After the death of Balbir Singh, the defendants have RSA No. 2112 of 2008 (O&M) 3 also failed to make the payment of the outstanding amount despite demands, having been raised by the plaintiff, time and again. 3. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Court, the defendants made appearance and filed the written statement. In the written statement, the defendants raised legal objections that the pronote and receipt dated 15.1.2002 is forged and fabricated document; there are material alterations in the pronote and receipt in question; the pronote and receipt were falsely prepared by the plaintiff in connivance with the scribe and the witnesses; the plaintiff is working as money lender without any licence, on account of which, the suit is liable to be dismissed; the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit; the plaintiff has filed the present suit, only to harass the defendants on account of which, the defendants are entitled to special costs u/s 35-A CPC from the plaintiff. On merits, the relationship of the defendant with Balbir Singh son of Teja Singh, deceased, has not been disputed. Even the fact of death of Balbir Singh has not been disputed. However, it is denied that on 15.1.2002, Balbir Singh, during his life time, had borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff and had executed the pronote and receipt in his favour. Rather, the pronote and receipt is alleged to be false and fabricated document. The defendants took up the plea that the plaintiff along with his son, is running the Artiya shop and Balbir Singh used to sell his crop through them and as security, they had obtained the signatures of Balbir Singh on blank papers. In the year 2001, Balbir Singh had demanded the RSA No. 2112 of 2008 (O&M) 4 settlement of accounts from the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff delayed the same, on one pretext or the other, on account of which, in the year 2001, Balbir Singh had started selling his crop through Gurcharan Singh, Artyia. Upon this plaintiff Ujjagar Singh nursed a grievance against Balbir Singh, on account of which, this pronote and receipt had got prepared by the plaintiff against Balbir Singh. Besides this, in the year 2001, Balbir Singh was not mentally fit person. He was disturbed, on account of which, he could not understand his good or bad. He was undergoing treatment from Dr.Sandeep Kumar, from Manodisha Hospital, Barnala and had remained admitted in the Hospital. On account of this mental illness of Balbir Singh, the question of borrowing of huge amount of Rs.3,00,000/- does not arise. The plaintiff have obtained the signatures of Balbir Singh on blank pronote and receipt and thus these documents have no legal value. As such, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the suit. 4. In the replication, the plaintiff controverted the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the facts pleaded in the plaint.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether deceased Balbir Singh taken a loan of Rs.3 lac from the plaintiff on 15.1.02 at Thikriwala and in lieu of this, he executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate?OPP RSA No. 2112 of 2008 (O&M) 5 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants?OPP 4. Whether the pronote and receipt dated 15.1.2002 is a forged and fabricated document?OPD 5. Whether there are material alterations in the pronote and receipt?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is doing the business of money lending without licence?OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 8. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merits. Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 15.1.2002 executed by Balbir Singh in favour of the plaintiff after borrowing a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. In order to prove his case, plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW3 and examined PW1 Kartar Singh scribe of the pronote and receipt and PW2 Bharpur Singh, attesting witness. The said witnesses deposed with regard to the due execution of the pronote and receipt. The case of the defendants, who are the legal representatives of deceased-Balbir Singh, is that Balbir Singh was suffering from hypomania and he was having business dealing with the plaintiff. The signatures of Balbir Singh had been taken on blank pronote and receipt by the plaintiff. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by RSA No. 2112 of 2008 (O&M) 6 the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff has been successful in proving the due execution of the pronote and receipt and hence, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be decreed. Both the Courts below have rightly rejected the plea raised by the defendants that the signatures of Balbir Singh had been taken on blank pronote and receipt as the execution of the same has been duly proved by the plaintiff. Moreover, Balbir Singh never made any complaint to the police or any authority regarding his signatures having been obtained on blank pronote and receipt by the plaintiff. Balbir Singh had sold his crops to the plaintiff in the year 2001 and this showed that he was not such a mentally sick person who could not conduct any business transaction. Defendants examined DW1 Dr.Sandeep Kumar to establish that Balbir Singh was suffering from Hypomania. In this regard as per DW1, Balbir Singh was under his treatment from 23.5.2001 to 26.12.2001. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that thereafter the condition of Balbir Singh was not normal. The pronote and receipt in dispute were executed on 15.1.2002. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the factum of lending of money had not been not established by the plaintiff from the accounts maintained by him in his normal course of business as he was running the business of commission agent. However, there is no force in this argument. Plaintiff has been successful in proving the due execution of the pronote and receipt and it is possible that the advancement of loan to Balbir Singh was not mentioned by him in his accounts books as it did not relate to their business transaction. As per the jamabandi, mutation with regard to land of Balbir RSA No. 2112 of 2008 (O&M) 7 Singh has been sanctioned in favour of the defendants. In these circumstances no ground for interference is made out. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court, Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge August 26, 2009 arya