The main legal point established in the judgment is that a single appeal was competent against a composite decree in a suit and counter-claim, and the plaintiff's suit for possession was decreed based on the defendant's failure to prove the execution of the documents and his financial capacity.

JUDGMENT

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J —The defendant has filed this regular second appeal against the judgments of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed. The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction for directing the defendant to restore to him the possession of booth No.129, Sector 15, Chandigarh, which was alleged to have been illegally and forcibly taken by the defendant on 20.06.2009 and to hand over goods worth approximately Rs.10, 00, 000/-, the original allotment letter of booth and other important documents, which were alleged to be forcibly taken away by the defendant. It had also been prayed that the agreements to sell dated 20.02.2008 and 17.01.2009 and the undated document showing possession to have been handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant on 20.06.2009 be declared as forged, fabricated and null and void. Damages for the use and occupation of booth from the date of dispossession till restoration of possession were also claimed.

2. The case of the plaintiff was that he is the original owner and allottee of booth No.129, Patel Market (Rehri Market), Sector 15 Chandigarh and that he has been running his business from the said booth under the name and style of 'M/s Bawa Crockery House' and was dealing with sale of steel and brass crockery and plastic goods. The Booth was allotted to him by the Chandigarh Administration on 04.05.1993 on lease for 99 years. He has been paying installments of Rs.910/- per year. An amount of Rs.58, 000/- is still due to the Chandigarh Administration. The booth is of the size 8 ft x 8 ft. The market value thereof at the time of filing of the suit was stated to be approximately Rs.35, 00, 000/-. It was stated in the year 2008 the value of the booth was approximately Rs.30, 00, 000/-. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was only 9th pass. He was not well conversant with English language. He could sign in English but could not read or write in English.

3. It was pleaded that the defendant was running his business from booth No.276, Patel Market, (Rehri Market), Sector 15, Chandigarh. The defendant was also engaged in money lending as a side business. In the year 2005, Mohit Kumar son of the plaintiff started assisting him in running the business as the plaintiff wanted to diversify into other areas. His son thereby came in contact with the defendant. Mohit Kumar took a loan of Rs.10, 000/- from the defendant in the year 2005. The loan was to be returned within a period of 110 days. Rs.100/- was to be repaid daily. This amount was repaid. At the time of lending the money, the defendant had taken two blank signed stamp papers from Mohit Kumar. The signatures of the plaintiff were also obtained on those papers. Mohit Kumar took a loan of Rs.10, 000/- from the defendant on three occasions. Apart from that, he also took extra loan as dasti loan which was at a very exorbitant rate of interest and was repayable within one or two weeks. Though all the loans were repaid by son of the plaintiff, however, the defendant did not hand him back the blank signed documents. The plaintiff's son thereafter took up some private service. The plaintiff also took some loan from the defendant. In 2007, the plaintiff took a loan of Rs.15, 000/-. It was repaid with interest. In November/December 2007, the defendant got the plaintiff to sign some blank documents i.e. two blank signed cheques, one blank signed stamp paper and one or two blank signed pages. The plaintiff took a loan of Rs.32, 900/- from the defendant on 03.03.2008, which he was repaying with a daily installment of Rs.200/-. When only Rs.12, 000/- remained as due, the defendant warned the plaintiff that in case this amount of Rs.12, 000/- was not returned till 21.01.2009, the amount payable would be doubled. He was made to accept those terms in writing. Sometime later, the defendant came with blank stamp paper of Rs.5/- dated 16.01.2009 and forced to plaintiff to sign that as well. Both these documents were retained b