JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent finding of dismissal of the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-.

2. Case of the plaintiff is that respondents/defendants entered into a criminal conspiracy and received an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- from plaintiff on the pretext of sending him abroad i.e. to Germany, but thereafter, neither he was sent to Germany nor the amount was returned.

3. It has been further pleaded by the plaintiff that in the month of October, 2006, Rs.25,000/- was given in cash to defendant No.3-Jasbir Kaur. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, Rs,1,60,000/- and Rs.15,000/- was deposited in the bank account of defendant No.1 in Centurion Bank of Punjab, Court Road, Amritsar. One F.I.R. No.98 dated 16.02.2008 under Section 420 I.P.C. was also registered in Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar against the defendants. However, in regard to the said criminal case, arguing counsel before this Court has submitted that later on, said FIR was cancelled.

4. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex parte whereas, defendants No.2 to 4 filed a written statement by taking the plea that plaintiff-Narinder Singh is cousin of Sukhwant Kaur wife of Kulwant Singh, defendant No.2. He was to purchase land and as such, by making a false representation and assurance, he claimed Rs.5,25,000/- from defendant No.2 in the year 2005 and purchased the land. He had also taken the tractor of defendant No.2 with an excuse to cultivate the land. An amount of Rs.5,25,000/- was paid by defendant No.1 to plaintiff- Narinder Singh after raising the same from Sukhdev Singh and other relatives. Later on, intention of the plaintiff changed and therefore, defendant No.2 had reported the matter to the police for the purpose of taking back the tractor from plaintiff-Narinder Singh. After intervention of the police authorities, said tractor was returned by the plaintiff.

5. However, defendants have specifically denied the averment made by the plaintiff regarding the giving of amount of Rs.5,50,000/- to defendant No.1 as pleaded in the plaint.

6. After going through the pleadings available before the Court, following five issues were framed:-

"1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.5,50,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a.? OPP

2. Whether suit is filed within limitation? OPP

3. Whether suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP

4. Whether plaintiff has filed the present suit by suppressing the material facts from the court? OPD

5. Relief."

7. Trial Court held that in fact, crediting of amount as pleaded by the plaintiff is found to be there in the account statement of defendant No.1 but plaintiff has failed to prove that said amount was deposited by whom. In other words, plaintiff could not discharge the onus to prove the aforementioned issue No.1. Accordingly, trial Court held that plaintiff has failed to establish his connectivity of depositing the amount as reflected in the account statement of defendant No.1.

8. Finding has also been recorded that the plea taken by the defendants is well established on record. Rather taking of tractor from defendant No.2 is also admitted by plaintiff, during the course of cross-examination.

9. It is also observed by the trial Court that the facts regarding bitterness in relations of plaintiff with the defendants as pleaded in the written statement filed by the defendants No.2 to 4 had been concealed by the plaintiff, in the plaint.

10. Even, plaintiff failed to produce any evidence on record t