Dismissed

Rishpal Singh and Anr. v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 May 2013RSA/1545/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal against dismissal of a suit for recovery, the High Court held that appellants cannot plead minority after availing loan benefits and mortgaging property. The appeal was dismissed as without merit, considering the judgment debtors engaged in misrepresentation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed without any merit. No declaration sought regarding legality of documents. Relief of injunction denied.

Rishpal Singh and Anr. Vs Registrar… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

RSA 1545 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision : May 09, 2013

¶3

Rishpal Singh and another

¶4

....Appellants

¶5

Versus The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana and another

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶8

Present: Mr. Kartik Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

¶9

T.P.S. MANN, J.

¶10

Aggrieved of the dismissal of their suit by the Courts below, the plaintiffs have filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶11

The case of the plaintiffs, as set up by them in their plaint, was that show cause notices were received by them from the Karnal District Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited-defendant No.2(here-in-after referred to as ' the Co-operative Bank ') wherein it was stated that certain sums were advanced to them for dairy development and they had failed to deposit the installments. They were directed to appear before the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Bank to show cause as to why the entire loan amount be not recalled and

¶12

RSA 1545 of 2012(O&M)

¶13

-2-

¶14

recovered by sale of the mortgaged property. According to the plaintiffs, they never took any loan from the Co-operative Bank and, therefore, not liable to pay any amount. No part of their property stood mortgaged with the Co-operative Bank and, therefore, the same could not be sold for recovering the amount said to have been advanced to them. They also pleaded that they were minors on the dates on which the Co-operative Bank was alleged to have advanced the loan to them.

¶15

Both the defendants filed a joint reply and asserted that the loans were advanced to the plaintiffs for dairy development and repairing of tubewell. They failed to deposit the installments in time. As they had mortgaged their agriculture land and mutation in this regard stood entered in the revenue record in favour of the Co-operative Bank, those properties could be sold to recover the amount advanced. Regarding the minority of the plaintiffs at the time of advancement of loan, the defendants stated that the Sub Registrar, Karnal had also checked and seen the plaintiffs at the time of execution and registration of the mortgage deed in the presence of the village Lamberdar and other witnesses.

¶16

Having heard counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants and going through the judgments passed by the Courts below, this

¶17

RSA 1545 of 2012(O&M)

¶18

-3-

¶19

Court is of the considered view that both the appellants by misrepresenting their ages had taken benefit of the advance for dairy development and tubewell repairing. Once they had taken the benefit, they cannot now turn around to say that they were minors at the time of advancement of the loan or that the defendants have no right to enforce the contract by recovering the advance amount after putting the mortgaged land on sale. Moreover, the appellants have only sought an injunction against the defendants for not recovering the amount but no declaration is sought that the documents executed by them were illegal. The appellants appeared to be clever persons by first availing the loan facility after executing the documents and mortgaging their land but thereafter, turning around to take the plea of being minor at the time of the advance.

¶20

In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the plaintiffs in the present appeal. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence available on the record. The various substantial questions of law framed by the appellants do not arise for determination.

¶21

The appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed.

¶22

RSA 1545 of 2012(O&M) -4-

¶23

( T.P.S.MANN ) May 09, 2013 JUDGE ajay-1

Rishpal Singh and Anr. v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishpal Singh and Anr. v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulalit Gupta Vs State of Punjb Thr'H S.H.O. Police Station , Ldh

Malhara Singh Vs Pb State.

Soni Devi and Ors. Vs Union of India

Gram Panchyat Sukhi Majara Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Harbans Kaur and Ors. Vs Dari Ram and Anr.

Jagdish Chander and Ors. Vs State of Haryana Andors.