IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2154 of 2007 Date of decision: 21st October, 2008 Harchand Singh … Appellant Versus Surjit Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.K. Shukla, Advocate for the Appellant. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) This is the second appeal filed by Harchand Singh, defendant to the suit. Surjit Singh plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs.17,160/- as interest/ damages for the period from 17th September, 2001 to 16th August, 2002. It was the case of the plaintiff that a mortgage deed dated 17th September, 2001 was executed by the defendant for a consideration of Rs.1.00 lac. It was agreed between the parties that the possession of the land will remain with the defendant and he shall pay interest at the rate of 1.56 percent per month to the plaintiff – respondent. It was further stated in the suit that despite various requests made, defendant – appellant had not paid the interest, hence the suit was filed. Notice was issued. Written statement was filed. Preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the suit, cause of action were raised on merits. It was submitted that the execution of the mortgage deed is due to fraud. It had been stated that respondent was called for executing power of attorney and instead mortgage deed had been got executed without Regular Second Appeal No.2154 of 2007 bringing this fact to the knowledge of the appellant defendant to the suit. It was stated that he had no knowledge of the mortgage deed. After the pleadings were concluded, following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the defendant executed a registered mortgage of land fully detailed in the head note of plaint in favour of plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. one lacs ? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 17160/- by way of interest from the defendant w.e.f. 17.9.2001 to 16.8.2002 as alleged ? OPP 3. Whether suit as framed is not maintainable ? OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is speculative one, if so its effect ? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPP 6. Relife. Plaintiff examined Gurpal Singh, Scribe of the mortgage deed (Ex.P-1). This was witnessed by Mohinder Singh Lambardar and Rajinder Kumar Municipal Councilor. Rajinder Kumar Municipal Councilor, attesting witness of the mortgage deed appeared as PW-2. Plaintiff himself appeared as PW-3. Jiwan Dass Bhalla, who was posted in Treasury office at Amloh, was examined as PW-4 to show that stamp papers for the mortgage deed were purchased by the appellant Harchand Singh on 17th September, 2001. Defendant appeared as DW-1 and reiterated the version taken by him in his written statement. From examination of scribe of the mortgage deed, PW-1 Gurpal Singh, PW-2 Rajinder Kumar attesting witness and on going through the mortgage deed, it was rightly concluded by the trial Court that Rs.1.00 lac was handed over to the defendant and he had executed mortgage deed (Ex.P-1). This fact is further corroborated 2 Regular Second Appeal No.2154 of 2007 from the testimony of PW-4 Jiwan Dass Bhalla, who was a Clerk in the Treasury and from whom stamp papers were purchased by Harchand Singh appellant. The findings of the trial Court have been affirmed by the appellate Court below. The appellate Court has relied upon the testimony of attesting witness, wherein it was stated that mortgage deed was read over to the defendant before the Sub-Registrar. Except the oral bald assertion by the appellant, when he appeared as PW-1, there is no other evidence led by him to disprove the mortgage deed (Ex.P-1). Appellate Court has also taken into consideration the fact that no handwriting expert was examined by the appellant. During the course of arguments, counsel for the appellant has stated that documents (Ex.D-2 and D-3) have not been taken into consideration by the two courts below. No argument regarding the documents (Ex.D-2 and D-3) was ever raised before the appellate Court below. Counsel has been called for to point out any portion of the judgments of two courts below, where this argument has been raised. Learned counsel has been unable to point out that any such argument was raised. Present appeal was filed on 14th March, 2007. Grounds of appeal before the lower appellate Court have also not been placed on record. Neither the documents (Ex.D-2 and D-3) have been placed on record. This contention of the petitioner that documents (Ex.D-2 and D-3) have not been taken into consideration, is without any basis and cannot be accepted. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below cannot be dislodged, simply because the appellant had a different version. Appreciation of the evidence by the two courts below cannot be faulted with, simply as the counsel has stated that the view taken by them is a 3 Regular Second Appeal No.2154 of 2007 wrong view. From the facts, learned counsel has failed to formulate any substantial question of law. No interference is called for. Hence, present appeal is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 21, 2008 rps 4