Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 585 (PNJ)

Pritam Singh v. Moorti Devi

2010-01-22

MAHESH GROVER

body2010
JUDGMENT MAHESH GROVER, J. - The defendants are in appeal against the judgments and decrees dated 26.2.2007 and 13.9.2007 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court') and the District Judge, Bathinda (described hereinafter as `the first appellate Court') whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed and the appeal of the appellants was partly allowed. 2. A suit for recovery of Rs.34,500/-was instituted by the respondent on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 10.11.1998 alleged to have been executed by Harvinder Kaur wife of appellant no.1 by which she had taken a sum of Rs.25,000/-as loan from her, i.e., the respondent. The appellants are the legal heirs of Harvinder Kaur, who had also agreed to repay the amount of loan along with interest at the rate of 2% per month on demand. However, she died on 22.5.1999 before repayment of the loan amount leaving behind the appellants as her legal and natural heirs. During the life time of Harvinder Kaur, the respondent is stated to have approached her for repayment of the loan amount,but all in vain. After the death of Harvinder Kaur, the appellants were also approached by the respondent for return of the loan amount along with interest, but they refused to do so compelling her to institute the suit. 3. The appellants appeared and contested the suit. They, however, did not deny their relationship with Harvinder Kaur, but disputed the execution of the pronote and receipt by her and pleaded fraud and forgery. It was denied that they had succeeded to the estate of Harvinder Kaur which fact has been specifically pleaded by the respondent while invoking jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is money lender? What effect? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Relief. 4. Both the Courts below have returned a concurrent finding that the execution of the pronote and receipt in question stood proved. OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is money lender? What effect? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Relief. 4. Both the Courts below have returned a concurrent finding that the execution of the pronote and receipt in question stood proved. Since the relationship of Harvinder Kaur with the appellants was not disputed, the Courts, on the basis of some material in the shape of municipal record, also concluded that the house belonging to Harvinder kaur had been inherited by the appellants. The suit was, therefore, decreed for recovery of the disputed amount along with interest at the rate of 2% per month by the trial Court. However, in appeal, the rate of interest was reduced and the suit was decreed for recovery of Rs.34,500/-along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its filing till the date of decree dated 26.2.2007 and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings, the appellants have filed the instant appeal. 6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no material from where it can be inferred that the appellants had succeeded to the estate of deceased-Harvinder Kaur. It was further contended that merely because there were some municipal entries depicting Harvinder Kaur as owner in the assessment register, it cannot be inferred that the house belonged to her and even if it is assumed that the house was in the name of Harvinder Kaur, the inheritance of the same by the appellants did not stand proved. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and in the absence of any substantial question of law having been shown to have arisen in the instant appeal, the same is totally devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have gone through the impugned judgments, as also the plaint and the written statement which were shown to this Court during the course of hearing. 9. 8. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have gone through the impugned judgments, as also the plaint and the written statement which were shown to this Court during the course of hearing. 9. The appellants pleaded fraud and forgery of the pronote on the basis of which entire claim of the respondent was based, but they have miserably failed to establish their plea by producing any cogent evidence from where it could be concluded that the pronote and receipt were forged documents. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous so as to invite interference by this Court and more-so when no substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen in the appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended with some vehemence that the appellants had not inherited the property of Harvinder Kaur. 11. Be that as it may, there is no dispute about the relationship of Harvinder Kaur with the appellants and being her legal heirs, they are liable to discharge the liability which she had suffered. Whether the recovery can be effected by creating a charge on the house in dispute or not, would be a question that can be determined by the Executing Court. 12. No ground to interfere. 13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit. 14. All pending civil miscellaneous applications are also disposed of in view of the above. Appeal Dismissed.