This is a second appeal wherein the appellant, aggrieved against the dismissal of his suit for recovery, reappreciated evidence to challenge the first Appellate Court's finding that the pronote and receipt were not executed by the defendant and resulted from fraud. The Court found no substantial question of law.
The 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.
RSA No.2418 of 1992 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2418 of 1992
Date of decision:- 23.04.2012
Rajinder Singh ....Appellant
Vs.
Nachhattar Singh ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Ishwar Lal, Advocate, for the respondent.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby suit for recovery of Rs.3400/- (Rs.2700/- as principal and Rs.700/- as interest thereon) was dismissed in appeal.
The plaintiff claims the aforesaid amount on the basis of pronote and receipt executed by the defendant on 15.07.1985 agreeing to pay the said amount alongwith interest at the rate of 3% per month. On the other hand, the defendant denied the execution of the said pronote and receipt and alleged that such documents are result of fraud and misrepresentation.
In order to prove the execution of pronote and receipt, the plaintiff himself appeared as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 Ajmer Singh, an attesting witness and PW-3 Rameshwar Nath, scribe of the pronote and receipt. The defendant appeared as his own witness as DW-1 and denied the execution of the pronote and receipt. It was stated that in fact the attesting witness of the pronote and receipt is an
RSA No.2418 of 1992 2
accused of murder of his brother and that the plaintiff had joint land with PW-2 Ajmer Singh. It was further stated that on account of dispute of partition of joint land, PW-2 Ajmer Singh has falsely appeared as a witness, as he is inimical towards him.
Learned trial Court decreed the suit, but the learned first Appellate Court found that the defendant while appearing as DW-1, has stated that he paid the entire amount to the plaintiff on 15.07.1985 and settled the accounts with him. The plaintiff has executed the receipt on the said date as well. The learned first Appellate Court has taken into consideration agreement dated 02.07.1984 (Ex.D4) in respect of settlement and the endorsement dated 15.07.1985 (Ex.D3) acknowledging the cancellation of the document of mortgage dated 02.07.1984 (Ex.D2). The learned first Appellate Court also taken into consideration the statement of DW-2 Kaka Singh, who has corroborated the statement of DW-1 Nachhatar Singh. The learned first Appellate Court has found that PW-2 Ajmer Singh is inimical towards Nachhatar Singh and that Nachhatar Singh has not been crossexamined on such question and that payment in respect of cancellation of the previous mortgage has not been disputed in the crossexamination.
After taking into consideration the entire evidence led by the parties, the learned first Appellate Court returned a finding of fact on the basis of reappreciation of evidence that the pronote and receipt were not executed by the defendant and are result of fraud and misrepresentation. The findings of fact recorded by the learned first Appellate Court are sought to be disputed in the second appeal by
RSA No.2418 of 1992 3
reappreication of evidence. It could not point out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration.
Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of
law arises for consideration by this Court on the basis of findings
recorded.
Dismissed. 23.04.2012 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether any substantial question of law arises from the findings of fact recorded by the first Appellate Court dismissing the second appeal.
Rajinder Singh
Nachhattar Singh
HEMANT GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
