Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Kaur vs Balbir Singh on 16 January, 2023
RSA-2692-1999(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-2692-1999(O&M)
Date of decision:-16.1.2023
Kulwant Kaur and others
...Appellants
Versus
Balbir Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: None
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Balbir Singh
had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.48,120/- with interest and costs
against defendants Kulwant Kaur widow of Mohinder Singh, Jaspal Kaur
daughter of Mohinder Singh, Sinder Paul Kaur daughter of Mohinder
Singh and Darshan Singh son of Mohinder Singh.
2. As per the case of the plaintiff, Mohinder Singh predecessor-
in-interest of defendants had borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from him
agreeing to return the amount with interest @ 2.25% per month on
27.6.1993 and had executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the
plaintiff; the pronote was signed by Mohinder Singh and attested by the
witnesses; although Mohinder Singh has expired but he is being survived
1 of 6
RSA-2692-1999(O&M) -2-
by his legal heirs i.e. the defendants, who are in possession of his
property, therefore, they are liable to pay the suit amount.
3. As per the version of the plaintiff, he had called upon
Mohinder Singh during his life time and after his death the defendants to
return the loan amount with interest but to no effect, as such the plaintiff
brought the suit in question.
4. On notice, the defendants appeared and filed written
statement contesting the suit denying the assertions in the plaint, refuting
that Mohinder Singh had ever borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from the
plaintiff or had executed any pronote and receipt in his favour. According
to the defendants as Mohinder Singh has died, therefore, they can at best
be held liable for the amounts taken for legal necessity. The defendants
denied their liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff.
5. The plaintiff had filed replication to the written statement
controverting the allegations in the written statement whereas reiterating
the averments in the plaint.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed:
1. Whether Mohinder Singh now deceased borrowed a sum of
Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff on 27.6.93 and executed the pronote
and receipt in favour of the plaintiff? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?
OPD.
3. Relief.
7. The parties were afforded opportunities to lead evidence in
2 of 6
RSA-2692-1999(O&M) -3-
support of their respective claims.
During the course of his evidence, the plaintiff got his
statement recorded as PW1 besides examining Sher Singh as
PW2,Bahadur Singh as PW3 and also tendered in evidence certain
documents.
In rebuttal, the defendant No.1 Kulwant Kaur herself stepped
into the witness box as DW1. Since the defendants failed to conclude
their evidence despite availing ample opportunities, therefore their
evidence was closed by Court order.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial
Court decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants. Issue No.2 was decided against the defendants and in favour
of the plaintiff. As a result of findings on issues, the suit of the plaintiff
for recovery of Rs.48,120/- was decreed with costs. It was observed that
the defendants shall be liable to make the payment of decretal amount to
the extent of the property of the deceased Mohinder Singh, which has
come to their hands along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from
the date of filing of the suit till date of decree with future interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of decree till actual realisation. This was so done
vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.1997.
9. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
defendants had filed appeal in the Court of District Judge, Sangrur, which
were assigned to Additional District Judge, Sangrur, who vide judgment
and decree dated 12.1.1999 dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court.
3 of 6
RSA-2692-1999(O&M) -4-
10. Being dissatisfied with the judgments and decrees passed by
the Courts below, the defendants have filed the present regular second
appeal before this Court, notice of which was given to the respondents,
who put in appearance through counsel.
11. Subsequently none of the counsel put in appearance on behalf
of the parties. As such, I am proceeding further to decide the appeal after
going through the record since the appeal relates to the year 1999.
12. Here to the specific case set up by the plaintiff that Mohinder
Singh predecessor-in-interest of defendants had borrowed a sum of
Rs.35,000/- from him undertaking to return the same with interest @
2.25% per month on 27.6.1993 and had executed a pronote and receipt in
his favour, the defendants are offering a complete denial. However, the
plaintiff appearing as PW1 repeated on oath his case as given in the plaint
proving the pronote Ex.P9 and receipt Ex.P10 executed by Mohinder
Singh in his favour, which were attested by PW2 Sher Singh and PW3
Bahadur Singh further stating that during his life time Mohinder did not
pay any amount to him and after his death the defendants did not bother to
return any amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had proved on record
postal receipts Ex.P2 to Ex.P5. He further stated that when the defendants
were about to sell the land then he obtained injunction against them. PW2
Sher Singh and PW3 Bahadur Singh, both the attesting witnesses of
pronote and receipt, supported version of the plaintiff on material points.
Although they were cross-examined at length on behalf of the defendants
but they stuck to their guns and could not be shattered on any material
point. No reason is coming fourth as to why PW1 Balbir Singh (plaintiff)
4 of 6
RSA-2692-1999(O&M) -5-
should prepare fake documents and sue the defendants and for PW2 Sher
Singh and PW3 Bahadur Singh join the alleged conspiracy and depose
falsely against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. On the other
hand, the defendants are completely denying the pronote Ex.P9 and
receipt Ex.P10. Defendant Kulwant Kaur (defendant No.1), is a sole
witness, who had appeared on behalf of the defendants. This witness
denied Mohinder Singh having raised any loan from the plaintiff or
executing any pronote and receipt in his favour. The trial Court by
detailed analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties in light of their
pleadings has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has successfully
proved that the Mohinder Singh had borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from
him on 27.6.1993 and executed pronote and receipt in favour of the
plaintiff undertaking to return the loan amount with interest @ 2.25% as
and when demanded by the plaintiff. The version of the plaintiff was
found to be plausible and convincing, whereas that of defendants was held
to be unworthy of reliance.
13. The suit was rightly decreed by the trial Court. No fault can
be found with the approach of the trial Court in decreeing the suit of the
plaintiff. The First Appellate Court of Additional District Judge, Sangrur
by proper analysis of evidence and correct interpretation of law held the
appeal to be without any merit and dismissed the same. Similar is the
position with regard to the present regular second appeal filed by the
defendants. The same comes out to be without any element of merit.
14. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are
quite detailed well reasoned, based on proper appraisal of evidence and
5 of 6
RSA-2692-1999(O&M) -6-
correct interpretation of law, which do not call for any interference.
15. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
16. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same stands dismissed.
Since the main appeal is dismissed, the miscellaneous
application(s), if any stands disposed of accordingly.
16.1.2023 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
