High Court of Punjab And Ha D Haryana
Case Details
IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Page 1 of 8 8 (cid:1) RSA-2399-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.02.2025 137 ingh Shingara Singh Vs. Tajinder Singh ingh (now deceased) through his LR is LRs ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- te Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** The defendant is in se second appeal against the judgments of s of the learned Courts below low whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respo espondent herein, seeking recovery very of Rs.49,56,000/- was partly decreed for pr or principal amount of Rs.12 lakh kh along with interest @ 6% per annum from om 28.04.2011 by the learned Ad d Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sirsa irsa vide judgment and decree da dated 22.11.2022. Against the said judgment ent, two appeals were filed – one one by the plaintiff and another by the defend endants before the learned Additio itional District Judge, Sirsa. Vide judgment and and decree dated 03.08.2024, both both the said appeals have been dismissed. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of the case as s as set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff tiff and the defendant were kn known to each other. The appellant/defe defendant was in need of mon money. As such, the plaintiff advanced loan loan of Rs.1,20,000/- to the defenda endant vide registered Mortgage Deed No.3288 3288 dated 26.05.2006 (Ex.P1) on w on which the defendant agreed SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 2 of 8 8 (cid:1) to pay interes erest at the rate of 2% per mens ensem. Thereafter, the plaintiff advanced an a an additional amount of Rs.80,000 ,000/- vide registered Mortgage Deed No.7572 572 dated 21.11.2006 (Ex.P3) to th to the defendant. A third loan of Rs.2 lakh on s on same terms and conditions was was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendan dant. Thus, making the total am l amount payable against the defendant as R as Rs.4 lakh. The defendant again d ain demanded an additional loan of Rs.4 lakh w h which was given by the plaintiff v tiff vide Mortgage Deed No.7227 dated 22.01.2 .01.2010 (Ex.P7). Thereafter, anot nother sum of Rs.4 lakh was extended to th to the defendant vide Mortgage De Deed No.887 dated 27.04.2011 (Ex.P9). Thus, hus, as on 27.04.2011, the princip incipal amount due against the defendant wa was Rs.12 lakh. The defendant p nt paid the interest as per the terms and co d conditions of the Mortgage D e Deed to the plaintiff up to 27.04.2011. H . However, thereafter, despite de e demand by the plaintiff, the defendant fai failed to make payment of inte interest. The total amount of interest due due from 28.04.2011 till 10.08 0.08.2018 was stated to be Rs.37,56,000/ 00/-. As such, the plaintiff served le ed legal notice dated 18.07.2017 through regist egistered post to the defendant th t through his counsel. However, the defendant dant failed to respond to the same ame. As such, plaintiff filed the present suit it on 11.8.2017 seeking recovery o ry of Rs.49,56,000/- (Rs.12 lakh principal amo mount + Rs.37,56,000/- as interest erest thereupon) on the basis of registered M Mortgage Deed No.887 dated ted 27.04.2011 in respect of mortgaged lan d land measuring 19 kanal 0 marla arla as described in the plaint, along with in h interest @ 2% per mensem on on the basis of 5 registered SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Mortgage Dee Deeds No.3288 dated 26.05.2006, 006, No.7572 dated 21.11.2006, Page 3 of 8 8 (cid:1) No.1969 dated ated 18.06.2007, No.7227 dated 22 d 22.01.2010 and No.887 dated 27.04.2011. 3. Upon notice, the defenda endant put in appearance and filed written s en statement and alleging that the the plaintiff is a money lender and has got ot no licence under the Money ey Lending Act. It was further averred that t at the plaintiff had trapped many f ny farmers in his clutches in the guise of runn unning commission agency busine siness. The plaintiff was getting fictitious docu ocuments by way of security from t om the farmers. The plaintiff was getting signat gnatures on blank papers and sta stamp papers in the guise of security for th r the dealings of the commission a on agency of the plaintiff. It was averred by th y the defendant that the plainti aintiff in connivance with one Ashutosh Pal S Pal Singh Firangi s/o Komal Singh w gh was running finance business in which they hey were getting signatures of unsu unsuspecting farmers over blank papers and s nd stamp papers in the guise o se of security for dealings of commission a n agency. As such, the plaintiff al ff along with said Ashutosh Pal Singh Firangi ngi was duping farmers of their la ir lands by misusing such blank papers. The d he defendant being simpleton farm farmer had been believing the plaintiff and p nd plaintiff has misused the allege leged documents. It was denied that the defen efendant owed any money to the the plaintiff and it was alleged that the Mortg ortgage Deeds are the result of fra f fraud and misrepresentation. It was further a er averred that the plaintiff had had advanced only a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- - to the defendant at the time of e of start of business in the year SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 2006 and the the land was mortgaged by the the defendant just by way of security of the f the said amount. On the promisso issory assurances of the plaintiff, Page 4 of 8 8 (cid:1) the defendant dant had signed the said mortgag tgage for Rs.1,20,000/- but had never agreed ed to pay interest upon the same. e. As such, Mortgage Deed has been misused sed by the plaintiff. The other adv advances of Rs.2 lakh and Rs.4 lakh etc. were ere denied by the defendant. It w It was alleged that the plaintiff never account ounted for the sale of the crops of s of the defendant; whereas the defendant on on the good faith had kept on selli selling his crop and used to take the sale price rice only from the plaintiff. In the ye e year 2016, the defendant had demanded his his account from the plaintiff; w f; whereafter relations between them became ame strained leading to the filing iling of the present suit by the plaintiff on 11 n 11.08.2017. With these avermen ents, the defendant prayed for dismissal of th of the suit. 4. Replication was not filed b led by the plaintiff. On the basis of pleadings o gs of the parties, following issues ues were framed by the learned trial Court vide vide order dated 08.03.2018:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of is Rs.49,56,000/- alongwith interest erest on the grounds taken in the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no loc o locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether suit of the plaintiff ntiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopp topped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 5. Relief.” SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 5. On the basis of pleading dings and oral & documentary Page 5 of 8 8 (cid:1) evidence addu adduced by the parties, the learne arned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the the plaintiff directing the defendan dant to pay the principal sum of Rs.12 lakh alon along with interest @ 6% per annum nnum from 28.04.2011. 6. The said judgment and de d decree dated 22.11.2022 was challenged by by the plaintiff as also the defend fendant before the ld. Additional District Judge, dge, Sirsa by way of two separate ate appeals. Vide judgment and decree dated ted 03.08.2024, both the said app appeals were dismissed by the learned First A rst Appellate Court. Hence, the pres present second appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the d he defendant submits that the appellant/defe defendant is a simpleton farmer mer. On the other hand, the plaintiff is a co a commission agent running a comm ommission agent firm under the name and sty style of M/s Tajinder Trading Com Company. The plaintiff regularly dupes and fra fraudulently commits fraud upon on simple farmers. The J Forms were duly brou brought on record by the defendan dant. Moreover, the plaintiff had advanced only only a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to th o the defendant for agriculture purpose and nd it was promised that the mor mortgage will not be enforced against the d e defendant. The mortgage was as just a security because the defendant wa was selling crop to the plaintiff. T iff. The plaintiff never advanced any other mo money to the defendant. No amou mount of Rs.4 lakh was paid to the defendant dant. There is no receipt against pay payment of the alleged amount. The loan was was given only in the year 2006 an 6 and the land was mortgaged. SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 6 of 8 8 (cid:1) The subseque quent Mortgages dated 21.11.20 1.2006, 18.06.2007, 22.01.2010 and 27.04.201 .2011 are a result of fraud. It is t is accordingly prayed that the impugned judg judgments and decrees be set aside side. 8. 9. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned cou counsel for the appellant and perused the case file in great detail. 10.
Legal Reasoning
It is the contention of the d he defendant that the impugned Mortgage Dee Deeds were procured by the plaint laintiff by obtaining signatures of the defendant dant on blank papers which were s re subsequently misused by the plaintiff. It has t has also been submitted by learne arned counsel for the defendant that only a s a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was giv given by the plaintiff to the defendant aga against the mortgage of land; an ; and that no other amount of money was ev s ever given to the defendant. How However, the said contentions of the appellant lant/defendant are belied by the the overwhelming evidence on record to the the contrary. Perusal of record o rd of the case shows that the plaintiff as PW s PW2 and vide his sworn affidavit ( vit (Ex.PW2/A); as also evidence of PW1-Arjan rjan Dev, Deed Writer, had proved oved that the Mortgage Deeds dated 26.05.2 05.2006, 21.11.2006, 18.06.2007, 07, 22.01.2010 and 27.04.2011 (Ex.P1, Ex.P3, .P3, Ex.P5, Ex.P7 and Ex.P9) were sc re scribed at the instance of the defendant in in favour of the plaintiff. PW1 sp 1 specifically deposed that after scribing the d e deeds, he read the contents of t of the same over to the parties whereafter, af r, after understanding and admitti itting the contents of the said Deeds to be t be true, the parties appended thei their respective signatures over SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 7 of 8 8 (cid:1) the Deeds in in the presence of witnesses. Nec Necessary entries in this regard were also ma made by PW1 in his register as ev as evident from excerpts (Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P6, E P6, Ex.P8 and Ex.P10). The Deeds in ds in question were also proved by the eviden idence of PW3-Ashutosh Pal Sing Singh Firangi who deposed as above. PW3 3 further deposed that the de defendant had received the mortgage amo amount from the plaintiff in his pre presence; except on 27.04.2011 which amoun ount was received by the defenda ndant before the Sub-Registrar. From the abo above facts and findings, it is clea clear that the Mortgage Deeds were executed uted by the defendant in favour of r of the plaintiff. It is also clear that the argum rgument of the defendant that the the said Mortgage deeds were a result of fraud raud, is unfounded. Moreover, the the original registered Mortgage Deeds duly e ly endorsed by the Sub-Registrar strar, along with computerised photographs o hs of both the parties were brough ought on record as Ex.P1, Ex.P3, Ex.P5, Ex.P7 a P7 and Ex.P9. Even the defendant ant as DW1 has admitted in his cross-examina ination that the said Mortgage ge Deeds (Ex.P1, Ex.P3, Ex.P5, Ex.P7 and Ex.P Ex.P9) bear his signatures, and all all the said Deeds were scribed by Arjan Dev Dev. The defendant has further ad r admitted that contents of the said Deeds we s were read over to him which were ere admitted by him whereafter he appended ded his signatures to the said Deed eed. It was admitted that even before the Su Sub-Registrar, the contents of the the mortgage deeds were read over to him an m and after admitting the contents, nts, he appended his signatures on the same me. Thus, on the basis of the abov above said voluminous oral and SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 8 of 8 8 (cid:1) documentary ary evidence, it was established th d that each and every Mortgage Deed was exec executed for a separate loan transac nsaction. 11. Learned counsel for the d he defendant has been at great pains to imp impress upon this Court that the the plaintiff is a commission agent/money ey lender. To substantiate the said said argument reference has also been made t de to the J Forms (Ex.D2 to Ex. Ex.D10). However, the record indicates that that the said contention of the the defendant also remained unsubstantiate tiated as, mere placing on record ord of the J Forms would in no way establish lish that the same were issued b d by the plaintiff. As such, the defendant fail failed to establish that the plainti aintiff is a commission agent. It may also be no e noted that it has been argued on on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff ha iff had similarly duped many farmer rmers. However, admittedly only bald assertion tions in this regard have been mad made by the defendant without examining any any farmer to support the said con contention. It has also come on record that th at the plaintiff and the defendant ant were known to each other since school ti ol time. 12. Accordingly, in view of the f the above, I find no ground is made out to to interfere in the well-reasoned ed judgments of the ld. Courts below. The pre ed. present appeal stands dismissed. 13. Pending application(s) if an
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. 05.02.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)