R. S. A. No. 3606 of 2010 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R. S. A. No. 3606 of 2010 (O&M)

Date of Decision : January 12, 2011

Sushil Kumar

....

Appellant

Vs.

Narender Singh and others

....

Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

* * *

Present :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate

for the appellant.

* * *

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

C. M. No. 14029-C of 2010 :

Application is allowed and court fee annexed with the

application is taken on record.

C. M. No. 10645-C of 2010 :

Applicant-appellant has since paid the requisite court fee on

second appeal. Consequently, instant application for permission to file the

appeal as indigent person is disposed of as having been rendered

infructuous.

C. M. No. 10646-C of 2010 :

R. S. A. No. 3606 of 2010 (O&M)

2

Allowed as prayed for.

C. M. No. 10647-C of 2010 :

For reasons mentioned in the application, which is

accompanied by affidavit, delay of 106 days in filing the appeal is

condoned.

C. M. No. 10648-C of 2010 :

For reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 15 days in

re-filing the appeal is condoned.

C. M. No. 10649-C of 2010 :

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Appeal :

Sushil Kumar – defendant no.2 having failed in both the courts

below is in second appeal.

Suit was filed by Narender Singh – respondent no.1-plaintiff

against appellant and proforma respondents no.2 to 8, who are legal heirs of

Ramlal deceased, being his widow, sons and daughters. Plaintiff's case is

that Ramlal borrowed ₹ 35,500/- on 11.05.1993 and ₹ 26,000/- on

13.05.1993 from the plaintiff and executed four pronotes-cum-receipts

and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 1.56% per month. Ramlal

has since died. Defendants have inherited his estate being his legal heirs

and are liable to pay the loan amount with interest. Accordingly, plaintiff

sought recovery of ₹ 96,038.40, which included principal amount of

R. S. A. No. 3606 of 2010 (O&M)

3

₹ 61,500/- and interest amount of ₹ 34,538.40 till filing of the suit.

Only defendant no.2 contested the suit. He controverted the

plaint allegations. Execution of pronotes-cum-receipts in question by

Ramlal was denied. It was alleged that Ramlal had not taken any loan. It

was also pleaded that defendants are not liable to pay loan taken by Ramlal.

It was also alleged that defendants have not inherited property of Ramlal

and are, therefore, not liable to pay his debts. Various other pleas were also

raised.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, vide judgment

and decree dated 11.11.2002, decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal

preferred by defendant no.2 has been dismissed by learned Additional

District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated

30.09.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.2 has preferred the instant

second appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

case file.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that

defendants have not inherited any property from Ramlal. The contention

cannot be accepted. It has come in the testimony of appellant himself that

he has inherited ancestral property of his father Ramlal. Even otherwise,

liability of defendants to pay the decretal amount shall be only to the extent

of the estate inherited by them from Ramlal, as has also been observed by

R. S. A. No. 3606 of 2010 (O&M)

4

the trial court.

Learned counsel for the appellant next vehemently contended

that Ramlal was a gambler and drunkard and the alleged loan was not taken

for family needs. This contention is irrelevant because liability of the

defendants to pay the debt taken by their predecessor Ramlal is to the extent

the estate inherited by defendants from Ramlal (since deceased).

Consequently, the question whether the debt was taken for bad habits or for

family needs pales into insignificance because