Back
2011 Supreme(SC) 362
2011 (3) Supreme 137
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Gurmukh Singh — Appellant
versus
Jaswant Kaur — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5140 of 2004
Decided on : 4-4-2011
IMPORTANT POINT
Concurrent findings of fact by all the courts below cannot be interfered by Supreme Court in appeal.
Headnote:Judicial Review – Concurrent findings of fact by all the courts below cannot be interfered by Supreme Court in appeal. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
1. The plaintiff-appellant claimed that the defendant had executed a pronote and receipt dated 2.5.1994 whereby the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same along with interest @ 2% per annum on demand.
2. Since the defendant had not paid the aforesaid amount, the suit was filed.
3. The trial court found that the pronote and receipt were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. However, the trial court rejected the plaintiff’s claim by holding that the said documents were not duly stamped as required under the provisions of Indian Stamps Act and that the stamps which were affixed on the pronote were removed from another document and affixed on the said pronote.
4. This finding was affirmed by the first appellate court as well as the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Concurrent findings of fact by all the courts below cannot be interfered by Supreme Court in appeal.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Markandey Katju, J. —
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.8.2003 in R.S.A. No.1069 of 2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,31,000/-. He claimed that the defendant had executed a pronote and receipt dated 2.5.1994 whereby the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same along with interest @ 2% per annum on demand. Since the defendant had not paid the aforesaid amount, the suit was filed.
4. The defendant-respondent contested the suit and denied the execution of the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. She alleged that the aforesaid pronote and receipt were forged and fictitious documents.
5. The trial court on the basis of evidence found that the pronote and receipt were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. However, the trial court rejected the plaintiff’s claim by holding that the said documents were not duly stamped as required under the provisions of Indian Stamps Act. It was found by the trial court that the stamps which were affixed on the pronote were removed from another document and affixed on the said pronote.
6. The first appellate court and the High Court have agreed with the view of the trial court. Thus all the three courts below decided against the appellant.
7. The findings of the courts below are findings of fact and we cannot interfere with the same in this appeal. The finding is that the stamps which have been affixed were removed from other documents, and hence, it has rightly been said that such a pronote cannot be taken into consideration.
8. Thus there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. No costs.
***********
