Kulwant Singh Brar vs Jagjit Singh - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2808

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2808

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARUN MONGA, J.
Kulwant Singh Brar – Appellant
Versus
Jagjit Singh – Respondent
RSA-4696 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. D.S. Bhinder, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Parminder Singh-I, Advocate for Respondent.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 118 - Recovery of loan - Plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.2,48,000/- dismissed by trial Court, upheld by First Appellate Court - Defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- but failed to repay; plaintiff also claimed wrongful execution of promissory note - The courts found discrepancies in claims regarding loan execution, with evidence suggesting the transactions were subject to prior disputes and therefore, the loan was not established. (Paras 4, 8, 18, 21)

(B) Proving Loan - The burden rests on the plaintiff to prove the loan’s existence and the consideration - Evidence failed to establish that the loan was given to the defendant given concurrent disputes regarding repayment and capacity to lend. (Paras 16, 23)

Facts of the case:
Defendants borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- for cold storage, with a promissory note executed in favor of the plaintiff on 20.11.1999, but failed to repay as alleged. The plaintiff claimed interest at 28% and attempted to assert the validity of the note amidst defenses raised.

Findings of Court:
The concurrent judgments upheld are based on factual assessments showing the lack of evidence of loan execution, affirming that no compelling grounds exist for appeal.

Issues: Whether the plaintiff proved the execution of the promissory note and the claim for recovery of the amount.

Ratio Decidendi: The courts confirmed that the burden to prove both the loan and a valid agreement rested with the plaintiff, who failed to provide satisfactory proof, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

Result: Appeal dismissed, judgments upheld.

Table of Content
1. details of the loan agreement (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments for and against loan execution (Para 10 , 11)
3. affirmation of lower court's ruling (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
4. court's reasoning on evidence and findings (Para 18)
5. final order of dismissal (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral)

For convenience, parties herein are addressed as per the recitals before learned trial Court.

2. Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts below, appellant/plaintiff in second appeal before this Court assailing learned trial Court judgment and decree dated 08.08.2011, as upheld by learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 20.07.2012 dismissing the Plaintiff/appellant's suit for recovery of Rs.2,48,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt executed in his favour by defendant on 20.11.1999.

3. Briefly stated, facts, as noticed by learned Courts, are as below:

"2. The facts put forth in the plaint are that defendant Jagjit Singh s/o Lal Singh resident of Village Jandanwala, borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff on 20.11.1999 at Bathinda for the installation of the building of cold Storage. He undertook to pay interest @ 28 per mensum and promised to return the principal amount alongwith with interest on demand by the plaintiff. As a token of the said amount, Jagjit Singh defendant executed a pronote and receipt on 20.11.1999, in favour of the plaintiff. After admitting the contents to be correct and affixing the requisite stamps, defendant appended his signatures on the pronote and receipt in the presence of the scribe and marginal witnesses. The defendant inspite of several demands by the plaintiff had failed to make the payment either towards the principal amount or towards the interest A total amount of RS.2 lac towards principal amount and Rs.48,000/- as interest has become due from the defendant to plaintiff, which the defendant has failed to return inspite of repeated requests. Hence, the present suit."

4. Upon notice, defendant filed written statement taking legal objections that plaintiff had no locus standi or cause of action to file suit; suit was not maintainable. Plaintiff did not approach the Court with clean hands and had concealed true and material facts. It was stated that plaintiff had taken his signature on the pronote by misrepresentation without any consideration. Further certain averments were made and at last, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4.1. Replication was filed reiterating the averments of plaint. In the replication, plaintiff admitted the execution of agreement to sell by defendant and his son in favour of wife and mother-in-law of plaintiff. Remaining averments in the written statement were denied.

5. Based on the rival pleadings, following issues were framed:

"1. Whether the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of pronote and receipt dated 20.11.1999 from the plaintiff? OPP.

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount claimed along with interest? If so, at what rate?OPD.

3. Whether the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Whether plaintiff is a money lender? If so its effect? OPD

6. Relief."

6. The parties to the suit adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their pleadings and to discharge their respective onus as per the issues, ibid.

7. On appraisal of evidence vis-a-vis pleadings, learned trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 against plaintiff. Issues No.3 and 4 were decided against defendant. While deciding issue No.5, findings were returned that this issue was framed inadvertently since there was no plea of defendant regarding plaintiff being a money lender, to the contrary plea was that plaintiff was a petition writer and an advocate. Consequently, suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

8. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree dated 08.08.2011, appellant/plaintiff