In regular second appeal against concurrent findings, the court held that the documents proved execution and receipt of consideration. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. The suit was decreed only for recovery of money.
The regular second appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R.S.A. No. 3622 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 3622 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: November 12, 2008
Gora Lal
..Appellant
v.
Karnail Singh
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. D. S. Pheruman, Advocate for the appellant.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The defendant is in second appeal before this court against concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed only to the extent of recovery of Rs. 1,67,000/with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of execution of agreement to mortgage till the institution of the suit and with future interest @ 6% per annum.
Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to mortgage dated 29.6.2002 and in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 1,67,000/- along with interest, the amount paid at the time of execution of agreement. The appellant-defendant being owner in possession of 9/40th share of land measuring 77 bighas and 14 biswas, entered into an agreement with the respondent-plaintiff and at the time of execution of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 1,67,000/- was paid in cash. The appellant-defendant denied the execution of the agreement. The stand was that his thumb impression was taken on blank papers.
On consideration of the material placed on record by the parties, the trial court decreed the suit only to the extent of recovery of money. Even before the lower appellate court, the appellant failed.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is discrepancy in the evidence led by the respondent-plaintiff which clearly raises a doubt on the execution of the document and passing of consideration to the appellant.
However, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant and also perusing agreement dated 29.6.2002, I do not find any merit in the submission made. A perusal of the document does not show that it was a kind of document on which something had been written later on an existing thumb marked plain paper.
R.S.A. No. 3622 of 2008 [2]
Further, the document shows that it contained the signatures of the son of the appellant- Jaspal Kumar, who in his own hand had acknowledged the receipt of a sum of Rs. 1,67,000/- before putting his signatures. This fact could not be disputed. On the basis of the document, which was duly proved, the learned courts below have passed a decree of recovery of money only. The findings recorded are plain and simple findings of fact giving rise to no question of law, much less a substantial question of law.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
12.11.2008 mk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of the mortgage agreement and receipt of consideration warrant interference in second appeal.
Gora Lal
Karnail Singh
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
