Gurmit Singh v. Ram Das & Ors.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. GS Jaswal, Advocate, for the appellant Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate, for the respondents L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by plaintiff Gurmit Singh who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below. Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs 97,615/- and for permanent injunction. Defendants no. 1 and 2 are parents of the plaintiff whereas defendants no. 3 and 4 are brothers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that there was compromise dated 21.5.1998 between the parties regarding joint family properties. However, the dispute still remained alive. Again there was compromise dated 23.8.1998 according to which plaintiff was to be paid Rs 2,25,000/- in lieu of his share and also a scooter. The plaintiff relinquished his claim in tempo, house and machinery. The defendants gave the scooter to the plaintiff but failed to make payment of Rs Regular Second Appeal No. 192 of 2009 -2- 2,25,000/-. The defendants then pressurized the plaintiff to enter into an another compromise dated 2.9.1998according to which the defendants were to pay Rs 1,30,000/- to the plaintiff in lieu of his share in the house and thereupon said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff who received the said amount of Rs 1,30,000/-. The plaintiff accordingly claimed the remaining amount of Rs 95,000/- as per compromise dated 23.8.1998 along with Rs 2615/- as interest thereon. Defendants denied compromises dated 21.5.1998 and

23.8.1998 alleging the same to be forged and fabricated ones. Compromise dated 2.9.1998 was, however, admitted. It was pleaded that compromise dated 23.8.1998 does not bear thumb impression of defendant no. 2 whereas thumb impression of defendant no. 1 was obtained on blank papers in Police Station. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samrala vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.2005 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 9.8.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Both the courts below have found that there was valid compromise dated 2.9.1998 between the parties which was presented in the court in the previous suit. Defendants have admitted the said compromise in the instant suit. The plaintiff is so dishonest that he even alleged that the said compromise was obtained under threat although the same was effected in court in the previous suit and pursuant thereto, the plaintiff even received Regular Second Appeal No. 192 of 2009 -3- Rs 1,30,000/- from the defendants. It exposes hollowness of claim of the plaintiff and his dishonesty. Compromise dated 2.9.1998 is not disputed. The dispute remains regarding compromise dated 23.8.1998. Both the courts below have found that the said compromise has been forged and fabricated by the plaintiff. The said finding is based on sound reasons and proper appreciation of evidence. It has been proved beyond doubt that the alleged thumb impression of defendant no. 2 Lachhmi Devi on the alleged compromise dated 23.8.1998 is in fact not her thumb impression. Plaintiff's own witnesses who were witnesses of the said compromise have admitted that Lachhmi Devi had not thumb marked the alleged compromise in their presence. Fingerprint Expert examined by the defendants has also opined that the said thumb impression on the compromise on comparison with standard thumb impressions of defendant no. 2 was found to be not her thumb impression. The plaintiff has not examined any Fingerprint Expert. The plaintiff and his witnesses have rather admitted that defendant no. 2 was not called to Police Station where the compromise was effected. It thus becomes manifest that the plaintiff fabricated the alleged thumb impression on the alleged compromise dated 23.8.1998. The plaintiff produced forged compromise in evidence. The plaintiff is thus guilty of perjury. However, the courts below have not taken any action against the plaintiff for perjury and I also therefore refrain from doing so. As per alleged compromise dated 23.8.1998, the plaintiff was to receive Rs 2,25,000/- from the defendants. However, subsequent thereto, compromise dated 2.9.1998 was effected and pursuant thereto, the defendants admittedly paid Rs 1,30,000/- to the plaintiff. However, in the said compromise dated 2.9.1998, no reference of compromise dated Regular Second Appeal No. 192 of 2009 -4-

23.8.1998 has been made. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that compromise dated 2.9.1998 was only regarding the house which was subject matter of that suit in which the said compromise was effected. However, according to the plaintiff's version, the amount of Rs 1,30,000/- payable under compromise dated 2.9.1998 was part of amount of Rs 2,25,000/- payable under the alleged compromise dated 23.8.1998. If it were so, then reference to compromise dated 23.8.1998 would have been certainly made in compromise dated 2.9.1998, but compromise dated

2.9.1998 does not make any reference to compromise dated 23.8.1998. Thus, it is apparent that compromise dated 23.8.1998 was never effected between the parties. It is also pertinent to notice that pursuant to alleged compromise dated 23.8.1998, plaintiff had to pay litigation expenses of some other litigation to defendant no. 2, but admittedly the plaintiff did not pay the same. It also depicts that no such compromise dated 23.8.1998 had been effected. Compromise dated 23.8.1998 has been scribed by Suraj Parkash Deed Writer. He admitted that he enters all documents written by him in his register as is also the requirement of the relevant rules. However, entry of compromise dated 23.8.1998 has not been made in the register of the said Deed Writer who scribed the same and there is no explanation for this omission. It corroborates the defendants' version that thumb impression of defendant no. 1 was obtained on blank papers in Police Station. The plaintiff was also shaky in the witness box about compromise dated 2.9.1998. The plaintiff also admitted that defendant no. 2 was never called to the Police Station nor she came to the court. The Regular Second Appeal No. 192 of 2009 -5- plaintiff failed to explain as to how alleged thumb impression of defendant no. 2 (which is in fact not her thumb impression) appeared on alleged compromise dated 23.8.1998. Kulwinder Singh and Rajinder Singh witnesses of the alleged compromise dated 23.8.1998 also could not stand the test of cross-examination. In cross-examination, both of them rather stated that they had not even gone to the Police Station. They also had no knowledge of thumb impression of defendant no. 2 allegedly appended on the alleged compromise. From the aforesaid discussion, it is manifest that both the courts below have rightly arrived at conclusion that compromise dated 23.8.1998 is forged and fabricated document. The plaintiff's suit is based on the said compromise and therefore, the plaintiff has been rightly non-suited by the courts below. There is no illegality or perversity in the concurrent finding of the courts below so as to call for any interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is frivolous and completely devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. April 06, 2010 'tiwana' ( L.N. Mittal ) Judge