Modan Singh v. M/s Kumar Chand M/s Kumar Chand Janak Raj, through Janak Raj
Case Details
RSA-4966-2015 5 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA RSA-4966-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision : 11.09.2025 Date of Decision : Modan Singh ....Appellant VERSUS M/s Kumar Chand M/s Kumar Chand Janak Raj, through Janak Raj (deceased) through LRs Janak Raj (deceased) through LRs ….Respondent HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. P.K.S.Phoolka Mr. P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate for the , Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Vishwjeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Vishwjeet Singh, Advocate for the Mr. Vishwjeet Singh, Advocate for the -.- MANDEEP PANNU,J. MANDEEP PANNU,J. 1. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed challenging the Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed challenging the Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed challenging the Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed challenging the passed by the learned Additional District judgment and decree dated 24.03.2015 passed by the learned Additional District passed by the learned Additional District judgment and decree dated Judge (Fast Track Court), District Bathinda, whereby the appeal filed by the Judge (Fast Track Court), District Bathinda, whereby the appeal filed by the Judge (Fast Track Court), District Bathinda, whereby the appeal filed by the Judge (Fast Track Court), District Bathinda, whereby the appeal filed by the 11.08.20214 appellant was dismissed by upholding the judgment and decree dated 11.08.20214 appellant was dismissed by upholding the judgment and decree dated appellant was dismissed by upholding the judgment and decree dated passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo. passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Divi passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Divi
Legal Reasoning
Brief Facts 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of a sum of ₹4,62,000/–, comprising for recovery of a sum of being the principal , comprising ₹3,00,000/– being the principal amount and ₹1,62,000/ ₹1,62,000/– being the interest accrued thereon. It was pleaded by the being the interest accrued thereon. It was pleaded by the firm being a sole proprietorship concern had lent an plaintiff that the plaintiff-firm being a sole proprietorship concern had lent an firm being a sole proprietorship concern had lent an plaintiff that the plaintiff TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4966-2015 5 (O&M) -2- - amount of ₹3,00,000/ ₹3,00,000/– in cash to the defendant in cash to the defendant-Modan Singh on 10.03.2010 for his household purposes in the presence of witness Satpal. The defendant had his household purposes in the presence of witness Satpal. The defendant had his household purposes in the presence of witness Satpal. The defendant had his household purposes in the presence of witness Satpal. The defendant had agreed to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 1.5% per month. It was agreed to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 1.5% per month. It was agreed to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 1.5% per month. It was agreed to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 1.5% per month. It was further pleaded that the defendant executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the further pleaded that the defendant executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the further pleaded that the defendant executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the further pleaded that the defendant executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the the same date in lieu of having received the suit amount and put his plaintiff on the same date in lieu of having received the suit amount and put his the same date in lieu of having received the suit amount and put his the same date in lieu of having received the suit amount and put his signatures on the said pronote and receipt in the presence of witnesses. However, signatures on the said pronote and receipt in the presence of witnesses. However, signatures on the said pronote and receipt in the presence of witnesses. However, signatures on the said pronote and receipt in the presence of witnesses. However, despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the cessitated the filing of the present suit. loan amount, which necessitated the filing of the present suit. loan amount, which ne 3. Upon notice, the defendant appeared and contested the suit. The Upon notice, the defendant appeared and contested the suit. The Upon notice, the defendant appeared and contested the suit. The Upon notice, the defendant appeared and contested the suit. The defendant submitted that the suit is not maintainable and is without any cause of defendant submitted that the suit is not maintainable and is without any cause of defendant submitted that the suit is not maintainable and is without any cause of defendant submitted that the suit is not maintainable and is without any cause of e work of money action. It was further contended that the plaintiff is doing the work of money action. It was further contended that the plaintiff is doing th action. It was further contended that the plaintiff is doing th lending without obtaining the requisite license. The defendant further pleaded that lending without obtaining the requisite license. The defendant further pleaded that lending without obtaining the requisite license. The defendant further pleaded that lending without obtaining the requisite license. The defendant further pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. It was also alleged that the plaintiff is not a sole the suit was barred by limitation. It was also alleged that the plaintiff is not a sole the suit was barred by limitation. It was also alleged that the plaintiff is not a sole the suit was barred by limitation. It was also alleged that the plaintiff is not a sole refore, the proprietorship concern but an unregistered partnership firm, and therefore, the proprietorship concern but an unregistered partnership firm, and the proprietorship concern but an unregistered partnership firm, and the proprietor is not a proper person to file the present suit. It was specifically denied proprietor is not a proper person to file the present suit. It was specifically denied proprietor is not a proper person to file the present suit. It was specifically denied proprietor is not a proper person to file the present suit. It was specifically denied that the defendant had ever borrowed a sum of that the defendant had ever borr 2010 or had owed a sum of ₹3,00,000/– on 10.03.2010 or had e and executed any pronote or receipt in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged pronote and executed any pronote or receipt in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged pronot executed any pronote or receipt in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged pronot receipt were stated to be forged and fabricated documents. The defendant further receipt were stated to be forged and fabricated documents. The defendant further receipt were stated to be forged and fabricated documents. The defendant further receipt were stated to be forged and fabricated documents. The defendant further alleged that the attesting witness of the pronote, namely Satpal, is the real brother alleged that the attesting witness of the pronote, namely Satpal, is the real brother alleged that the attesting witness of the pronote, namely Satpal, is the real brother alleged that the attesting witness of the pronote, namely Satpal, is the real brother , the said Satpal had issued a notice for , the said Satpal had issued a notice fo of the plaintiff and earlier, on 04.06.2010, the said Satpal had issued a notice fo of the plaintiff and earlier, on 2008 for a sum of recovery on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 14.07.2008 for a sum of recovery on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated recovery on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated from the defendant, but no suit was filed on the basis of that pronote. ₹4,00,000/– from the defendant, but no suit was filed on the basis of that pronote. from the defendant, but no suit was filed on the basis of that pronote. from the defendant, but no suit was filed on the basis of that pronote. When the limitation for filing the suit on the basis of the said pronote expired, the When the limitation for filing the suit on the basis of the said pronote expired, the When the limitation for filing the suit on the basis of the said pronote expired, the When the limitation for filing the suit on the basis of the said pronote expired, the and ff, in collusion with his brother Satpal, forged the present pronote and ff, in collusion with his brother Satpal, forged the present pronote plaintiff, in collusion with his brother Satpal, forged the present pronote TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4966-2015 5 (O&M) -3- - against the defendant. On these premises, dismissal of the suit was prayed receipt against the defendant. On these premises, dismissal of the suit was prayed against the defendant. On these premises, dismissal of the suit was prayed against the defendant. On these premises, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: framed the following 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest from the defendant? OPP along with interest from the defendant? OPP along with interest from the defendant? OPP 2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPP form? OPP 3. Whether no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff? Whether no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff? Whether no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff? OPD OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD 5. Relief. 5. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined Satpal, attesting In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined Satpal, attesting In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined Satpal, attesting In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined Satpal, attesting witness of the alleged pronote and receipt, as PW1. Janak Raj, sole proprietor of witness of the alleged pronote and receipt, as PW1. Janak Raj, sole proprietor of witness of the alleged pronote and receipt, as PW1. Janak Raj, sole proprietor of witness of the alleged pronote and receipt, as PW1. Janak Raj, sole proprietor of the plaintiff firm, appeared as PW2. Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting and the plaintiff firm, appeared as PW2. Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting and the plaintiff firm, appeared as PW2. Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting and the plaintiff firm, appeared as PW2. Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting and s PW3. The plaintiff placed on record the fingerprint expert, was examined as PW3. The plaintiff placed on record the s PW3. The plaintiff placed on record the fingerprint expert, was examined a original pronote and receipt dated 10.03.2010 as original pronote and receipt dated P2, photocopy of 2010 as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, photocopy of the Rokar Bahi as Ex.P3, photocopies of the Bahi Khata for the years the Rokar Bahi as 10 to P3, photocopies of the Bahi Khata for the years 2009-10 to 2012–13 as Ex.P Ex.P-4, P-5, P-5/A and Ex.P5/B, Punjab trans lation of Rokar Bahi 5/A and Ex.P5/B, Punjab translation of Rokar Bahi 13 as 6, Punjabi translation of Bahi Khata for the year 2099-10 to 2012-13 as 6, Punjabi translation of Bahi Khata for the year 2099 Ex.P-6, Punjabi translation of Bahi Khata for the year 2099 P10, and thereafter closed his evidence. Ex.P7 to Ex.P10, and thereafter closed his evidence. P10, and thereafter closed his evidence. 6. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and placed on In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and placed on In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and placed on In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and placed on D1, and thereafter closed his evidence. record a copy of the legal notice, Ex.D1, and thereafter closed his evidence. record a copy of the legal notice, TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4966-2015 5 (O&M) -4- - Findings of the Trial Court Findings of the Trial Court 7. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and appreciating the The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and appreciating the The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and appreciating the The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence led by them decreed the suit of the plaintiff by observing that the plaintiff evidence led by them decreed the suit of the plaintiff by observing that the plaintiff evidence led by them decreed the suit of the plaintiff by observing that the plaintiff evidence led by them decreed the suit of the plaintiff by observing that the plaintiff on record due execution of the pronote and receipt. The had been able to prove on record due execution of the pronote and receipt. The on record due execution of the pronote and receipt. The had been able to prove Court observed that although the defendant had taken the plea of forgery and Court observed that although the defendant had taken the plea of forgery and Court observed that although the defendant had taken the plea of forgery and Court observed that although the defendant had taken the plea of forgery and fabrication, except for placing on record the photocopy of the legal notice allegedly fabrication, except for placing on record the photocopy of the legal notice allegedly fabrication, except for placing on record the photocopy of the legal notice allegedly fabrication, except for placing on record the photocopy of the legal notice allegedly arg, the defendant had failed to show that issued by Advocate Subhash Chandra Garg, the defendant had failed to show that arg, the defendant had failed to show that issued by Advocate Subhash Chandra G the said legal notice had been issued with regard to the present pronote and receipt. the said legal notice had been issued with regard to the present pronote and receipt. the said legal notice had been issued with regard to the present pronote and receipt. the said legal notice had been issued with regard to the present pronote and receipt. 8. It was further noticed that the defendant was taking contradictory It was further noticed that the defendant was taking contradictory It was further noticed that the defendant was taking contradictory It was further noticed that the defendant was taking contradictory his signatures upon the stands. On one hand, in the written statement he denied his signatures upon the stands. On one hand, in the written statement he denied stands. On one hand, in the written statement he denied pronote and receipt, while on the other hand in his deposition before the Court he pronote and receipt, while on the other hand in his deposition before the Court he pronote and receipt, while on the other hand in his deposition before the Court he pronote and receipt, while on the other hand in his deposition before the Court he took the plea that one blank pronote which was lying with Satpal had been misused took the plea that one blank pronote which was lying with Satpal had been misused took the plea that one blank pronote which was lying with Satpal had been misused took the plea that one blank pronote which was lying with Satpal had been misused reliance on the by the plaintiff for filing the present suit. The Court also placed reliance on the by the plaintiff for filing the present suit. The Court also placed by the plaintiff for filing the present suit. The Court also placed testimony of Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting and fingerprint expert, who had testimony of Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting and fingerprint expert, who had testimony of Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting and fingerprint expert, who had testimony of Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting and fingerprint expert, who had proved that the signatures appearing on the pronote and receipt tallied with the proved that the signatures appearing on the pronote and receipt tallied with the proved that the signatures appearing on the pronote and receipt tallied with the proved that the signatures appearing on the pronote and receipt tallied with the specimen signatures of the defendant. With these observations, the trial Court specimen signatures of the defendant. With these observations, the trial Court specimen signatures of the defendant. With these observations, the trial Court specimen signatures of the defendant. With these observations, the trial Court eed the suit of the plaintiff. decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Findings of the First Appellate Court Findings of the First Appellate Court 9. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Lower learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda. The learned Lower learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda. The learned learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda. The learned Court categorically observed that the plaintiff had duly proved Appellate Court categorically observed that the plaintiff had duly proved Court categorically observed that the plaintiff had duly proved Court categorically observed that the plaintiff had duly proved advancement of loan by examining PW1 Satpal, the attesting witness of the advancement of loan by examining PW1 Satpal, the attesting witness of the advancement of loan by examining PW1 Satpal, the attesting witness of the advancement of loan by examining PW1 Satpal, the attesting witness of the pronote and receipt. PW1 deposed that he knew both the parties and that the pronote and receipt. PW1 deposed that he knew both the parties and that the pronote and receipt. PW1 deposed that he knew both the parties and that the pronote and receipt. PW1 deposed that he knew both the parties and that the defendant had obtained cash loan of ₹3,00,000/ defendant had obtained cash loan of from the plaintiff firm on 000/– from the plaintiff firm on in his presence and had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1.5% per 10.03.2010 in his presence and had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1.5% per in his presence and had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1.5% per in his presence and had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1.5% per TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4966-2015 5 (O&M) -5- - month. PW1 further testified that after receiving the amount in cash, the defendant month. PW1 further testified that after receiving the amount in cash, the defendant month. PW1 further testified that after receiving the amount in cash, the defendant month. PW1 further testified that after receiving the amount in cash, the defendant executed the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff in his presence. executed the pronote and receipt in favour of the plainti executed the pronote and receipt in favour of the plainti 10. The Court observed that from the testimony of these witnesses it stood The Court observed that from the testimony of these witnesses it stood The Court observed that from the testimony of these witnesses it stood The Court observed that from the testimony of these witnesses it stood proved that the amount was borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff, and after proved that the amount was borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff, and after proved that the amount was borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff, and after proved that the amount was borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff, and after understanding the contents of the pronote, the defendant had put his signatures understanding the contents of the pronote, the defendant had put his signatur understanding the contents of the pronote, the defendant had put his signatur understanding the contents of the pronote, the defendant had put his signatur examined at length, but nothing had been thereon. The witnesses had been cross-examined at length, but nothing had been examined at length, but nothing had been thereon. The witnesses had been cross Modan brought on record to discredit their testimony. The specimen signatures of Modan brought on record to discredit their testimony. The specimen signatures of brought on record to discredit their testimony. The specimen signatures of Singh matched with the signatures appearing on the disputed pronote and receipt. Singh matched with the signatures appearing on the disputed pronote and receipt. Singh matched with the signatures appearing on the disputed pronote and receipt. Singh matched with the signatures appearing on the disputed pronote and receipt. 11. a of forgery and fabrication raised by the defendant was also The plea of forgery and fabrication raised by the defendant was also a of forgery and fabrication raised by the defendant was also The ple considered. The lower appellate Court noted that although the defendant relied considered. The lower appellate Court noted that although the defendant relied considered. The lower appellate Court noted that although the defendant relied considered. The lower appellate Court noted that although the defendant relied upon the plea that earlier also some legal notice had been issued regarding another upon the plea that earlier also some legal notice had been issued regarding another upon the plea that earlier also some legal notice had been issued regarding another upon the plea that earlier also some legal notice had been issued regarding another ng a photocopy of the said legal notice allegedly pronote, but except for producing a photocopy of the said legal notice allegedly ng a photocopy of the said legal notice allegedly pronote, but except for produci issued by Advocate Subhash Chandra Garg, no cogent evidence had been brought issued by Advocate Subhash Chandra Garg, no cogent evidence had been brought issued by Advocate Subhash Chandra Garg, no cogent evidence had been brought issued by Advocate Subhash Chandra Garg, no cogent evidence had been brought to connect the present disputed documents with that earlier transaction. Thus, the to connect the present disputed documents with that earlier transaction. Thus, the to connect the present disputed documents with that earlier transaction. Thus, the to connect the present disputed documents with that earlier transaction. Thus, the documents had been forged to bring defendant had failed to show that the present documents had been forged to bring documents had been forged to bring defendant had failed to show that the present the suit within limitation. Concurring with the findings of the trial Court, the the suit within limitation. Concurring with the findings of the trial Court, the the suit within limitation. Concurring with the findings of the trial Court, the the suit within limitation. Concurring with the findings of the trial Court, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were upheld. appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were upheld. appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were upheld. appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were upheld. 12. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-defendant has preferr Feeling aggrieved, the appellant ed the present defendant has preferred the present Regular Second Appeal. Regular Second Appeal. 13. Upon notice, respondent appeared through his counsel and contested Upon notice, respondent appeared through his counsel and contested Upon notice, respondent appeared through his counsel and contested Upon notice, respondent appeared through his counsel and contested the appeal. of learned counsel for the parties Submissions of learned counsel for the parties of learned counsel for the parties 13.
Legal Reasoning
The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued that both the The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued that both the The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued that both the The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued that both the courts below had erred in relying upon the incredible testimony of the plaintiff’s courts below had erred in relying upon the incredible testimony of the plaintiff’s courts below had erred in relying upon the incredible testimony of the plaintiff’s courts below had erred in relying upon the incredible testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses and had ignored the defence of the appellant. It was submitted that PW1 witnesses and had ignored the defence of the appellant. It was submitted that PW1 witnesses and had ignored the defence of the appellant. It was submitted that PW1 witnesses and had ignored the defence of the appellant. It was submitted that PW1 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4966-2015 5 (O&M) -6- - witness of the pronote and receipt, is none else but the real Satpal, the attesting witness of the pronote and receipt, is none else but the real witness of the pronote and receipt, is none else but the real Satpal, the attesting brother of the plaintiff and had every reason to depose in favour of him. It was brother of the plaintiff and had every reason to depose in favour of him. It was brother of the plaintiff and had every reason to depose in favour of him. It was brother of the plaintiff and had every reason to depose in favour of him. It was further argued that the defendant had denied his signatures on the receipt and had further argued that the defendant had denied his signatures on the receipt and had further argued that the defendant had denied his signatures on the receipt and had further argued that the defendant had denied his signatures on the receipt and had isputed document was blank at the time of signing and also taken the plea that the disputed document was blank at the time of signing and isputed document was blank at the time of signing and also taken the plea that the d later on filled in by the plaintiff. Therefore, the testimony of the handwriting expert later on filled in by the plaintiff. Therefore, the testimony of the handwriting expert later on filled in by the plaintiff. Therefore, the testimony of the handwriting expert later on filled in by the plaintiff. Therefore, the testimony of the handwriting expert was of no consequence. It was further submitted that the photocopy of the legal was of no consequence. It was further submitted that the photocopy of the legal was of no consequence. It was further submitted that the photocopy of the legal was of no consequence. It was further submitted that the photocopy of the legal endant clearly showed that earlier also a notice notice placed on record by the defendant clearly showed that earlier also a notice endant clearly showed that earlier also a notice notice placed on record by the def was issued regarding some other pronote, but no action was taken thereon, and was issued regarding some other pronote, but no action was taken thereon, and was issued regarding some other pronote, but no action was taken thereon, and was issued regarding some other pronote, but no action was taken thereon, and once the limitation for filing a suit on the basis of that pronote expired, the present once the limitation for filing a suit on the basis of that pronote expired, the present once the limitation for filing a suit on the basis of that pronote expired, the present once the limitation for filing a suit on the basis of that pronote expired, the present g the signatures of the defendant. pronote and receipt was fabricated bearing the signatures of the defendant. pronote and receipt was fabricated bearin 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff ourts below that the submitted that there were concurrent findings of fact by both Courts below that the submitted that there were concurrent findings of fact by both submitted that there were concurrent findings of fact by both ence of PW1 loan had been advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant in the presence of PW1 loan had been advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant in the pres loan had been advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant in the pres examined. It was further argued that the Satpal, who was duly examined and cross-examined. It was further argued that the examined. It was further argued that the Satpal, who was duly examined and cross denying his signatures in the written defendant had taken contradictory stands denying his signatures in the written denying his signatures in the written defendant had taken contradictory stands statement but admitting them during his deposition by saying that signatures had statement but admitting them during his deposition by saying that signatures had statement but admitting them during his deposition by saying that signatures had statement but admitting them during his deposition by saying that signatures had n obtained on blank papers. It was submitted that once the signatures were been obtained on blank papers. It was submitted that once the signatures were n obtained on blank papers. It was submitted that once the signatures were n obtained on blank papers. It was submitted that once the signatures were admitted, the burden was upon the defendant to prove that the documents had been admitted, the burden was upon the defendant to prove that the documents had been admitted, the burden was upon the defendant to prove that the documents had been admitted, the burden was upon the defendant to prove that the documents had been fabricated. No such evidence had been led by the defendant except for placing on fabricated. No such evidence had been led by the defendant except for placing on fabricated. No such evidence had been led by the defendant except for placing on fabricated. No such evidence had been led by the defendant except for placing on of one legal notice which had no connection with the disputed record a photocopy of one legal notice which had no connection with the disputed of one legal notice which had no connection with the disputed record a photocopy documents. It was thus prayed that the RSA be dismissed. documents. It was thus prayed that the RSA be dismissed. documents. It was thus prayed that the RSA be dismissed. Findings 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the actual matrix which has been record with their assistance. The case rests upon a factual matrix which has been record with their assistance. The case rests upon a f record with their assistance. The case rests upon a f discussed in detail by both the courts below. There are concurrent findings of fact discussed in detail by both the courts below. There are concurrent findings of fact discussed in detail by both the courts below. There are concurrent findings of fact discussed in detail by both the courts below. There are concurrent findings of fact TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4966-2015 5 (O&M) -7- - that the plaintiff advanced a loan to the defendant, that the pronote and receipt that the plaintiff advanced a loan to the defendant, that the pronote and receipt that the plaintiff advanced a loan to the defendant, that the pronote and receipt that the plaintiff advanced a loan to the defendant, that the pronote and receipt defendant were duly were executed in lieu thereof, and that the signatures of the defendant were duly were executed in lieu thereof, and that the signatures of the were executed in lieu thereof, and that the signatures of the proved by both oral and expert evidence. proved by both oral and expert evidence. 16. The two objections raised by the defendant deserve consideration. The two objections raised by the defendant deserve consideration. The two objections raised by the defendant deserve consideration. The two objections raised by the defendant deserve consideration. Firstly, regarding the related witness PW1 Satpal. Merely because Satpal is the real Firstly, regarding the related witness PW1 Satpal. Merely because Satpal is the real Firstly, regarding the related witness PW1 Satpal. Merely because Satpal is the real Firstly, regarding the related witness PW1 Satpal. Merely because Satpal is the real itself render his testimony untrustworthy. It is brother of the plaintiff does not by itself render his testimony untrustworthy. It is itself render his testimony untrustworthy. It is brother of the plaintiff does not by well settled that relationship of a witness is not a ground to discard his testimony, well settled that relationship of a witness is not a ground to discard his testimony, well settled that relationship of a witness is not a ground to discard his testimony, well settled that relationship of a witness is not a ground to discard his testimony, if otherwise trustworthy. The testimony of PW1 was subjected to lengthy cross- if otherwise trustworthy. The testimony of PW1 was subjected to lengthy cross if otherwise trustworthy. The testimony of PW1 was subjected to lengthy cross if otherwise trustworthy. The testimony of PW1 was subjected to lengthy cross be elicited to shake his version. His examination, yet nothing substantial could be elicited to shake his version. His be elicited to shake his version. His examination, yet nothing substantial could deposition remained consistent and corroborated the execution of the pronote and deposition remained consistent and corroborated the execution of the pronote and deposition remained consistent and corroborated the execution of the pronote and deposition remained consistent and corroborated the execution of the pronote and receipt. Therefore, this objection does not hold merit. receipt. Therefore, this objection does not hold merit. receipt. Therefore, this objection does not hold merit. 16. Secondly, regarding the legal notice issued earlier in connection with Secondly, regarding the legal notice issued earlier in connection with Secondly, regarding the legal notice issued earlier in connection with Secondly, regarding the legal notice issued earlier in connection with other pronote. The defendant has only produced a photocopy of the said some other pronote. The defendant has only produced a photocopy of the said other pronote. The defendant has only produced a photocopy of the said other pronote. The defendant has only produced a photocopy of the said notice and failed to establish that the present disputed pronote and receipt were notice and failed to establish that the present disputed pronote and receipt were notice and failed to establish that the present disputed pronote and receipt were notice and failed to establish that the present disputed pronote and receipt were fabricated to overcome limitation. No witness was examined to prove the said fabricated to overcome limitation. No witness was examined to prove the said fabricated to overcome limitation. No witness was examined to prove the said fabricated to overcome limitation. No witness was examined to prove the said nce the signatures of the defendant on the present documents notice. It is trite that once the signatures of the defendant on the present documents nce the signatures of the defendant on the present documents notice. It is trite that o are proved, the burden shifts upon him to show that the documents are forged or are proved, the burden shifts upon him to show that the documents are forged or are proved, the burden shifts upon him to show that the documents are forged or are proved, the burden shifts upon him to show that the documents are forged or fabricated. Except for the photocopy of the notice, no cogent evidence has been fabricated. Except for the photocopy of the notice, no cogent evidence has been fabricated. Except for the photocopy of the notice, no cogent evidence has been fabricated. Except for the photocopy of the notice, no cogent evidence has been held that the plea of forgery rests on mere led. The courts below have rightly held that the plea of forgery rests on mere held that the plea of forgery rests on mere led. The courts below have rightly assumptions. 17. Legally also, once the execution of a document is admitted or the Legally also, once the execution of a document is admitted or the Legally also, once the execution of a document is admitted or the Legally also, once the execution of a document is admitted or the signatures thereon are proved, the burden lies heavily upon the party alleging signatures thereon are proved, the burden lies heavily upon the party alleging signatures thereon are proved, the burden lies heavily upon the party alleging signatures thereon are proved, the burden lies heavily upon the party alleging not discharged this burden. The forgery to establish the same. The defendant has not discharged this burden. The forgery to establish the same. The defendant has forgery to establish the same. The defendant has handwriting expert’s report has corroborated the signatures of the defendant on the handwriting expert’s report has corroborated the signatures of the defendant on the handwriting expert’s report has corroborated the signatures of the defendant on the handwriting expert’s report has corroborated the signatures of the defendant on the disputed documents. Thus, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the disputed documents. Thus, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the disputed documents. Thus, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the disputed documents. Thus, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4966-2015 5 (O&M) -8- - do not call for courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and interference in second appeal. interference in second appeal. Conclusion 18. Accordingly, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned Accordingly, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned Accordingly, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned Accordingly, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments and decrees dated 11.08.2014 and 24.03.2015 judgments and decrees ourts dated 11.08.2014 and 24.03.2015 passed by the Courts ismissed. The concurrent below, the present Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed. The concurrent below, the present Regular Second Appeal is hereby d below, the present Regular Second Appeal is hereby d findings of both the Courts below are upheld findings of both the 19.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. , 2025 September 11, 2025 tripti MANDEEP PANNU) (MANDEEP PANNU JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No. : Yes/No. Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document