Dismissed

Mall Singh v. Gurbachan Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Mar 2012RSA/1041/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the appellant challenged the lower courts' finding that a promissory note and receipt were forged. The Court upheld the lower courts' findings, holding that the discrepancy between the figure and words in the receipt was not a material alteration voiding the instrument under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for condonation of delay was allowed. The second appeal was dismissed as it raised no question of law.

Mall Singh Vs Gurbachan Singh — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

RSA No.1041 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1041 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: March 05, 2012

Mall Singh

.......Appellant

Versus

Gurbachan Singh

.......Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

¶12

Present: Mr.Arun Chandra, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

<><><>

¶14

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

¶15

CM No.2777-C of 2012

¶16

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 138 days in re-filing the present second appeal. The application is duly supported by an affidavit of learned counsel appearing for the appellant himself.

¶17

For the reasons stated in the application, the prayer is allowed.

¶18

Delay of 138 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

¶19

CM disposed of.

¶20

CM No.2778-C of 2012

¶21

4 . This is an application under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure for making good the court fee. Misc.application is allowed as

¶22

prayed for.

¶23

CM disposed of.

¶24

RSA No.1041 of 2012 (O&M)

¶25

¶26

RSA No.1041 of 2012

¶27

6 . The defendant-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.

¶28

The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,08,000/- in terms of pleading that on 30.8.2001, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.63,000/- from him and the same was agreed to be repaid along with interest @ 2% per month. A pronote and receipt were also executed in the presence of witnesses. Upon the defendant failing to make good the loan inspite of repeated demands, the suit had been filed.

¶29

The defendant contested the suit stating that he is an illiterate person and is working as a farm labourer. He stated that the pronote and the receipt were forged and fabricated documents. He further stated that his thumb impressions had been obtained by the plaintiff on some other pretext and such documents may have been misused and manipulated for the preparation of the pronote and the receipt.

¶30

The parties went to trial on the following crucial issue amongst

¶31

others:

¶32

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 30.8.2001, if so to what extent and what rate of interest?OPP”

¶33

The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed for the recovery of Rs.63,000/- and he was held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of advancement of loan till realization. A civil appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant has been dismissed in terms of the impugned judgment dated 14.5.2011 passed by the first Appellate Court thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

¶34

RSA No.1041 of 2012 (O&M)

¶35

¶36

I have heard Mr.Arun Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶37

The first submission raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the Courts below had proceeded on mis-reading and mis-appreciation of evidence inasmuch as the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff-respondent could not have been decreed on the basis of pronote and receipt as the same were forged and fabricated documents. In this regard, the concurrent findings have been recorded by the Courts below holding the pronote and receipt to be duly proved in accordance with law. Jaspal Singh, PW1, the scribe-cum-attesting witness was examined by the plaintiff-respondent. Such witness has been held to be an independent witness as he was neither related to the plaintiff nor was it the case of the present appellant that such witness was inimical towards him. The deposition of such witness was categoric to the extent that the pronote and receipt were scribed by him at the instance of the defendant and the same were read over and explained to him. The defendant had received Rs.63,000/- from the plaintiff after admitting the contents of the pronote and receipt as correct and thereafter had put his thumb impressions over the same. Even the amount in question was paid in his presence and in the presence of the other witness, namely, Atam Singh. The defendant has not denied his thumb impression but has merely stated that his thumb impression had been taken on some other pretext. However, no evidence has been led to prove such fact that the pronote and receipt have been forged by the plaintiff-respondent. Such concurrent findings of fact holding the pronote and receipt to be duly proved on record call for no interference

¶38

RSA No.1041 of 2012 (O&M)

¶39

¶40

in the second appeal.

¶41

Learned counsel would also argue that there was a cutting as regards the amount mentioned in the pronote. The Courts below have noticed that in the pronote, Exhibit P1, the amount in question i.e. Rs.63,000/- had been reflected in figures. Likewise, its half amount is also reflected in figures correctly i.e. Rs.31,500/-. However, in words, the amount was reflected as Rs.60,000/- and there is a cutting/alteration in the receipt, Exhibit P2, wherein the amount is clearly reflected as Rs.63,000/-.

¶42

In terms of Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the 1881 Act'), it is only a material alteration of a negotiable instrument that would render the same as void against any person who is a party thereto at the time of making such alteration and who has not consented thereto. In the light of the fact that the amount in question i.e. Rs.63,000/- has been reflected without any ambiguity insofar as figures are concerned in the pronote as also in the receipt, the alteration in the amount of figures cannot be construed as a material alteration under Section 87 of the 1881 Act so as to render the same as void.

¶43

For the reasons stated above, I find no perversity in the judgment of the Courts below. The present second appeal must fail as it does not raise any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. 16. The present second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 17. Appeal dismissed.

¶44

( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) MARCH 05, 2012 JUDGE SRM

¶45

Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No

Mall Singh v. Gurbachan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mall Singh v. Gurbachan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Buta Singh etc. Vs Surender Singh etc.

Buta Singh etc. Vs Kamla etc.

Buta Singh etc. Vs Manjit Singh etc.

Om Dhara and Ors. Vs Partap Singh and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Darshan Singh

Gurcharan Singh @ Buta Singh Vs Ranjit Singh