High Court of Punjab And Ha D Haryana
Case Details
Page 1 of 8 8 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 258 Avtar Singh ingh Gurjant Singh RSA-567-2021(O&M) Date of decision: 25.03.2025 Vs. ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocat for the appellant. ocate Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advoca for the respondent. vocate NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present second appeal ha tiff l has been filed by the plaintiff against the co concurrent judgments and decree ow crees of the learned Courts below whereby the he suit of the plaintiff for declaratio f is ration to the effect that plaintiff is joint owner in er in joint possession of suit land m 7 nd measuring 7 kanal 10 marla 7 sarsahi as des described in the plaint; and conse nt onsequential relief of permanent injunction, has , has been dismissed by both the Co e Courts below. 2. The parties shall hereinaft eir inafter be referred to as per their status before fore the learned trial Court i.e.
Legal Reasoning
nd i.e. appellant as “plaintiff” and respondent as as “defendant”. 3. Brief facts of the case as se on as set out in the plaint are that on 18.08.2006, th , the plaintiff had borrowed an am sh n amount of Rs.6,50,000/-in cash from the defe defendant in the presence of Pa nd f Paramjit Singh Namberdar and SUNENA 2025.03.28 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Lakhwinder Si r Singh. The plaintiff had promise Page 2 of 8 8 (cid:1) he mised to return the same to the defendant alo along with monthly interest of nt of 1%. However, the defendant exercised misr misrepresentation and coercion on led n on the plaintiff and compelled him to execute cute a Sale Deed in respect of the la of he land of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant dant as a security of loan amount en unt. On the same day, a written agreement wa t was also executed between the p nd he parties wherein the terms and conditions of of loan amount received by the nt the plaintiff from the defendant were incorpor rporated. In the first week of Augu ed ugust 2011, the plaintiff arranged money for rep repayment, but the defendant ke on kept putting off the matter on some pretext ext or the other. In July 2012, the p he the plaintiff again approached the defendant how however, he refused to accept the ith the loan amount back along with interest. Henc ence, the plaintiff filed the present ent suit on 28.07.2012. 4. Notice of the suit was g ho as given to the defendant who appeared thro through counsel and resisted the su nt. e suit by filing written statement. Besides forma rmal objections, it was pleaded in t he in the written statement that the alleged Agree greement dated 18.08.2006 is a nd s a false, forged, fictitious and fabricated do document and the defendant ed nt did not sign the purported agreement. It t. It was further stated that if the s on he signatures of the defendant on the alleged ag d agreement dated 18.08.2006 wer en were proved to be genuine, then the same ha had been fraudulently procured he ured by the plaintiff from the defendant in t in connivance with the scribe by ibe and marginal witnesses by misrepresentin enting the defendant. It was state ale tated that the scribe of the sale SUNENA 2025.03.28 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) deed dated 1 ed 18.08.2006 had obtained the Page 3 of 8 8 (cid:1) on the signatures of defendant on several docum cuments and the defendant had a all ad appended his signatures on all the documen ments in good faith believing th of g the same to be the part of documents of s of sale deed dated 18.08.2006. re 006. Remaining averments were denied, and it d it was prayed that the suit be dism dismissed. 5. Replication controverting en rting the contents of written statement was was filed by the plaintiff reiterating ting the averments of the plaint. 6. On the basis of pleadings o es ngs of the parties, following issues were framed b ed by the learned trial Court vide or e order dated 03.04.2013:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitle and joint possession in the prope OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitle injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaint present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopp fil file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has go present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit has not b purposes of court fee and jurisdict 7. Whether the plaintiff has got present suit? OPD 8. Whether the alleged agreeme fo forged and fictitious document? O 9. Relief.” ntitled to the relief of declaration ion or? roperty in dispute as prayed for? ent ntitled to the relief of permanent the laintiff is not maintainable in the to stopped by his act and conduct to the s got no locus standi to file the the ot been properly valued for the isdiction? OPD the got no cause of action to file the se, ement dated 18.08.2006 is false, nt? OPD 7. On the basis of pleading dings and oral & documentary evidence addu adduced by the parties, the learne arned trial Court decided issues SUNENA 2025.03.28 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 4 of 8 8 (cid:1) No.1 and 8 in 8 in favour of the plaintiff; issue N e No.2 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant dant was restrained from alienating ting the suit land in any manner or from dispos ispossessing the plaintiff illegally an y and forcibly from the suit land; issue no.3 wa was decided against the defenda endant; issue no.4 was decided against the d e defendant; issue no.5 was held held redundant; issue no.6 was decided again gainst the defendant; issue no.7 no.7 was decided against the defendant; an ; and accordingly, vide judgment nt and decree dated 10.8.2018, the suit of the the plaintiff was decreed with costs osts by the learned trial court. 8. Even though suit of the pla plaintiff had been decreed with costs, yet plain plaintiff filed appeal which was dism dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Cou Court vide judgment and decre ecree dated 29.1.2020. Hence, present secon cond appeal by the plaintiff. 9. It is y submitted by learned counsel l for the appellant/plai plaintiff that the loan transaction ion was proved before both the Courts below. low. However, no finding is given ven by learned Courts below in respect of the f the alleged Sale Deed. It is subm ubmitted that accordingly, once money decre ecree is passed, then even for for the period 18.08.2006 to 28.07.2012the the interest should be 6% and not not 12% per annum. It is further submitted tha that the principal amount alrea lready stands released to the respondent/de t/defendant. As such, application ation filed by the respondent bearing No.CM o.CM-5204-C-2023 for release of am of amount is infructuous. In this regard, copy o py of order dated 15.07.2023 pass passed by learned ACJSD/Jgn. in SUNENA 2025.03.28 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 5 of 8 8 (cid:1) CM/118/22 tit 2 titled as “Gurjant Singh Vs. Avtar vtar Singh” is handed over in the Court which is ch is taken on record and the same r me reads as follows: - “Heard on application for releasin leasing of the amount deposited by JD in sub treasury office Jagr Jagraon. File perused. JD Avtar Singh suffered statement on 1 n 11.07.2023 that he has no objection if the application for rel releasing of amount deposited by him in the Sub Treasury offic office Jagraon be allowed and amount released in favour of appl applicant/DH Gurjant Singh. It is also contended that their RSA pen A pending only qua reducing the interest rate and qua the princip rincipal amount there is no stay and JD himself made statement ent that the amount which he had deposited as per the orde order of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh igarh be released in favour of applicant/DH Gurjant Singh. It is a It is also contented by Id. Counsel for parties as well as parties in pe fo in person that only alienation of the property in question had be d been stayed and nothing else and present application is not reg t regarding alienation rather for the other purpose i.e. for takin taking the amount which was deposited by JD in favour of DH. DH. So, in view of the statement made by JD Avtar Singh himself self duly counter signed by his counsel and as per the applicatio ication, same is hereby allowed, subject to the outcome of final or al orders of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, arh, if any as DH will furnish an undertaking with effect that if in if in RSA pending before Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Cour Court, Chandigarh there is any modification or other orders, ers, so passed, in the order regarding interest which is pen pending, then if the same is reduced, then he is bound to retu return the amount to the JD and to follow the orders of Hon'ble 'ble Punjab and Haryana High SUNENA 2025.03.28 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Court, Chandigarh in the said said RSA in letter and sprit. Accordingly, application in han hand is allowed, subject to furnishing affidavit with that rega fu regard.” Page 6 of 8 8 (cid:1) 10. Learned counsel for the r he respondent submits that the Sale Deed on on the basis of which the plaintif intiff was claiming ownership in possession ov n over the suit property, was dec declared null and void by the learned trial C ial Court vide judgment and decre ecree dated 10.08.2018; which was duly affirm ffirmed by the learned First Appella pellate Court vide judgment and decree dated ted 29.01.2020. It is submitted th d that challenge in the present appeal is only nly to the rate of interest for the pe e period 18.08.2006/the date on which money ney was borrowed by the plaintiff, , up till date of filing of suit on 28.07.2012 - - which has been granted at the the rate of 12% per annum. It is submitted tha that no ground is made out to t to interfere in the impugned judgments an s and decrees of the learned Cou Courts below. Learned counsel accordingly pr ly prays for dismissal of the present a ent appeal. 11. I have heard learned coun ounsel for the parties and gone through the ca e case file in great detail. 12. It is patently incorrect fo ct for learned Counsel for the appellant/plai plaintiff to submit that no finding h ng has been given by the learned trial court in r in respect of the Sale Deed. A per perusal of the judgment dated 10.8.2018 sho shows that the learner trial court ha rt has categorically held that:- “18...the sale deed dated 18.08.2 and void on the payment of Rs. 6 .08.2006 is hereby declared null Rs. 6,50,000/- by the plaintiff to SUNENA 2025.03.28 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 7 of 8 8 (cid:1) the defendant within two mont along-with interest at the rate 18.08.2006 to 28.07.2012 as well interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per m of the suit till its realization and restrained from alienating the su mortgage, transfer or any other also restrained from dispossessin forcibly from the suit land...” fo onths from the date of order ate of Rs. 1% per month from well as pendente-lite and future per month from the date of filing and further, defendant is also he suit property by way of sale, her manner and the defendant is essing the plaintiff illegally and 13. On 02.09.2021, following ing order was passed by a Co- ordinate Benc ench of this Court:- “Counsel submits that the cond setting aside the sale deed, subjec by the plaintiff within 2 months f alongwith interest @ 1% per m 28.07.2012 and future interest @ date of filing of the suit till its rea interest @ 12% for the period o higher side and the same is liabl has also been argued that there fo for the recovery of the amount a justified to direct the refund as su ju This Court is not in agreement w argument, as admittedly the pla that it was a loan transaction and off the money, but the defendant Once there is an admission on be regarding this aspect, no interfere that account. Accordingly, notice of motion be i 30.11.2021, only to the limited ex rate for the period of 6 years prior In the meantime, it is open to t principal amount of Rs.6,50,000/ per annum from the date of the deposit. In case, the amount is de months with the Executing Cour conditional decree was passed ubject to deposit of Rs.6,50,000/- ths from the date of the Award er month from 18.08.2006 to est @ 6% per annum from the s realization. It is submitted that iod of almost 6 years is on the liable to be modified. Though it here was no such counter claim unt and the trial Court was not s such. ent with the second limb of the e plaintiff himself had admitted n and that he had wanted to pay dant was putting of the matter. n behalf of the plaintiff as such erference is liable to be made on be issued to the respondents for d extent of reducing the interest prior to the filing of the suit. to the appellant to deposit the ,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% f the agreement till the date of is deposited within a period of 2 Court, the respondents shall be SUNENA 2025.03.28 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) restrained from alienating the pr orders.” e property in question, tillfurther Page 8 of 8 8 (cid:1) 14. It is not denied by learned
Legal Reasoning
rned counsel for the respondent that, as reco recorded in order dated 15.07.20 7.2023 passed by the learned ACJSD/Jgn., t ., the principal amount of ₹6,5 ₹6,50,000/– has already been released to t to the respondent/ Decree Holde older. Thus, the only surviving grievance of t of the plaintiff in the present lis lis is in respect of the rate of interest. I find find no ground is made out to i to interfere on this aspect. Ld. Courts below low have very fairly awarded intere terest @ 1% per month for the period from 1 m 18.8.2006 till 28.7.2012; and @ 6 @ 6% per month thereafter, till realisation. 15.
Decision
In view of the above, the the present appeal is dismissed. The appellant llant is directed to make all payme yments due to the respondent within a perio eriod of two months from date of e of receipt of certified copy of this order. 16. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. 25.03.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: SUNENA 2025.03.28 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)