Kuldeep Singh v. Devi Dayal and another
Case Details
RSA-3242-2025 2025 (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-3242-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.12.2025 Date of Decision : Kuldeep Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Devi Dayal and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. Present: Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. -.- MANDEEP PANNU, J (Oral). MANDEEP PANNU, J (Oral). 1. Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the has been preferred by the defendant. The learned present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant. The learned has been preferred by the defendant. The learned present Regular Second Appeal trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2017, decreed the suit of the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2017, decreed the suit of the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2017, decreed the suit of the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2017, decreed the suit of the
Legal Reasoning
plaintiffs for recovery, which judgment was affirmed by the learned lower plaintiffs for recovery, which judgment was affirmed by the learned lower plaintiffs for recovery, which judgment was affirmed by the learned lower plaintiffs for recovery, which judgment was affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.07.2025. appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.07. appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.07. Brief Facts 2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that they are commission Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that they are commission Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that they are commission Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that they are commission agents dealing in sale and purchase of agricultural produce at New Grain Market, agents dealing in sale and purchase of agricultural produce at New Grain Market, agents dealing in sale and purchase of agricultural produce at New Grain Market, agents dealing in sale and purchase of agricultural produce at New Grain Market, Kurukshetra, and the defendant was their regular customer who used to sell his Kurukshetra, and the defendant was their regular customer who used to sell his Kurukshetra, and the defendant was their regular customer who used to sell his Kurukshetra, and the defendant was their regular customer who used to sell his ugh them and also used to take advances from them for agricultural produce through them and also used to take advances from them for ugh them and also used to take advances from them for agricultural produce thro agricultural needs. It is the pleading of the plaintiffs that all transactions between agricultural needs. It is the pleading of the plaintiffs that all transactions between agricultural needs. It is the pleading of the plaintiffs that all transactions between agricultural needs. It is the pleading of the plaintiffs that all transactions between the parties were maintained in their regular account books in rokars, bahi khata, the parties were maintained in their regular account books in rokars, bahi khata, the parties were maintained in their regular account books in rokars, bahi khata, the parties were maintained in their regular account books in rokars, bahi khata, and rojnamcha and on 30.04.2011 the defendant borrowed a sum of and rojnamcha and on 30.04.2011 t from he defendant borrowed a sum of ₹17,000/- from was debited in the account of the defendant, the plaintiffs and a sum of ₹15,358/- was debited in the account of the defendant, was debited in the account of the defendant, the plaintiffs and a sum of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3242-2025 2025 (O&M) -2- and the total amount was duly entered in the rojnamcha, acknowledging an and the total amount was duly entered in the rojnamcha, acknowledging an and the total amount was duly entered in the rojnamcha, acknowledging an and the total amount was duly entered in the rojnamcha, acknowledging an outstanding balance of ₹2,58,000/- against the defenda outstanding balance of nt. It is further pleaded that against the defendant. It is further pleaded that subsequent entries dated 27.07.2011, 28.11.2011 and 23.05.2012 were also made, subsequent entries dated 27.07.2011, 28.11.2011 and 23.05.2012 were also made, subsequent entries dated 27.07.2011, 28.11.2011 and 23.05.2012 were also made, subsequent entries dated 27.07.2011, 28.11.2011 and 23.05.2012 were also made, and after adjustment of various receipts and commissions, an amount of and after adjustment of various receipts and commissions, an amount of and after adjustment of various receipts and commissions, an amount of and after adjustment of various receipts and commissions, an amount of mands, remained outstanding against the defendant, despite repeated demands, remained outstanding against the defendant, despite repeated de ₹4,00,000/- remained outstanding against the defendant, despite repeated de pendente compelling the plaintiffs to file the present suit for recovery along with pendente compelling the plaintiffs to file the present suit for recovery along with compelling the plaintiffs to file the present suit for recovery along with and future interest @ 12% per annum till realization. lite and future interest @ 12% per annum till realization. and future interest @ 12% per annum till realization. 3. In the written statement, the defendant took preliminary objections In the written statement, the defendant took preliminary objections In the written statement, the defendant took preliminary objections In the written statement, the defendant took preliminary objections tandi, cause of action, limitation, estoppel and regarding maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, limitation, estoppel and tandi, cause of action, limitation, estoppel and regarding maintainability, locus s joinder of parties. The defendant denied having borrowed any amount from mis-joinder of parties. The defendant denied having borrowed any amount from joinder of parties. The defendant denied having borrowed any amount from joinder of parties. The defendant denied having borrowed any amount from the plaintiffs and denied acknowledging any balance once or ever. It was pleaded the plaintiffs and denied acknowledging any balance once or ever. It was pleaded the plaintiffs and denied acknowledging any balance once or ever. It was pleaded the plaintiffs and denied acknowledging any balance once or ever. It was pleaded n the account entries were that the signatures/thumb impressions appearing on the account entries were that the signatures/thumb impressions appearing o that the signatures/thumb impressions appearing o fraudulently obtained under the pretext of producing the books before the Income fraudulently obtained under the pretext of producing the books before the Income fraudulently obtained under the pretext of producing the books before the Income fraudulently obtained under the pretext of producing the books before the Income Tax Department, and that the plaintiffs had manipulated and forged the said entries Tax Department, and that the plaintiffs had manipulated and forged the said entries Tax Department, and that the plaintiffs had manipulated and forged the said entries Tax Department, and that the plaintiffs had manipulated and forged the said entries that he ever owed any to create a false liability. The defendant specifically disputed that he ever owed any to create a false liability. The defendant specifically disputed to create a false liability. The defendant specifically disputed amount to the plaintiffs and asserted that no amount was ever borrowed or settled amount to the plaintiffs and asserted that no amount was ever borrowed or settled amount to the plaintiffs and asserted that no amount was ever borrowed or settled amount to the plaintiffs and asserted that no amount was ever borrowed or settled on any of the dates mentioned by the plaintiffs. on any of the dates mentioned by the plaintiffs. 4. The following issues were framed by the trial Court vide order dated The following issues were framed by the trial Court vide order dated The following issues were framed by the trial Court vide order dated The following issues were framed by the trial Court vide order dated 06.01.2015: 1. aintiffs are entitled to decree for recovery of Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for recovery of aintiffs are entitled to decree for recovery of ₹4,00,000/- along with pendente lite ₹4,00,000/ pendente lite and future interest? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the pres ent suit? Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD OPD TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3242-2025 2025 (O&M) -3- 4. Whether the plaintiff firm is a money lending firm having no Whether the plaintiff firm is a money-lending firm having no licence to do the business of money-lending? OPD licence to do the business of money licence to do the business of money 5. Relief. 5. In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff No. 1 In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff No. 1 In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff No. 1 In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff No. 1 Devi Dayal as PW-1, who tendered his duly Devi Dayal as PW sworn affidavit Ex.PW1/A and 1, who tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.PW1/A and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiffs also examined Bhavesh reiterated the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiffs also examined Bhavesh reiterated the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiffs also examined Bhavesh reiterated the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiffs also examined Bhavesh 2, who brought the Kumar, official of the Income Tax Department, as PW-2, who brought the Kumar, official of the Income Tax Department, as PW Kumar, official of the Income Tax Department, as PW for the summoned record pertaining to the income tax returns of the plaintiff firm for the summoned record pertaining to the income tax returns of the plaintiff firm summoned record pertaining to the income tax returns of the plaintiff firm 2013 and compared the same with photocopies financial years 2007-2008 to 2012-2013 and compared the same with photocopies 2013 and compared the same with photocopies financial years 2007 3 Ganga Ex.P18 to Ex.P23 and stated them to be correct as per office record. PW-3 Ganga Ex.P18 to Ex.P23 and stated them to be correct as per office record. PW Ex.P18 to Ex.P23 and stated them to be correct as per office record. PW Ram Yadav, RDO, UBOI stepped into the witness box and produced the Ram Yadav, RDO, UBOI stepped into the witness box and produced the Ram Yadav, RDO, UBOI stepped into the witness box and produced the Ram Yadav, RDO, UBOI stepped into the witness box and produced the ning to account details of plaintiff firm and stated the same summoned record pertaining to account details of plaintiff firm and stated the same ning to account details of plaintiff firm and stated the same summoned record pertai to be correct as per his office record. The plaintiffs also adduced documentary to be correct as per his office record. The plaintiffs also adduced documentary to be correct as per his office record. The plaintiffs also adduced documentary to be correct as per his office record. The plaintiffs also adduced documentary evidence Ex.P1 to Ex.P30 and Mark-A and Mark evidence Ex.P1 to Ex.P30 and Mark A and Mark-B. 6. fendant On the other hand, to rebut the case of the plaintiffs, the defendant On the other hand, to rebut the case of the plaintiffs, the de On the other hand, to rebut the case of the plaintiffs, the de 1 and tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He examined himself as DW-1 and tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He 1 and tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He examined himself as DW examined at length. The defendant also produced documentary evidence was cross-examined at length. The defendant also produced documentary evidence examined at length. The defendant also produced documentary evidence examined at length. The defendant also produced documentary evidence Ex.D1 to Ex.D7. Ex.D1 to Ex.D7. Findings of the trial Court Findings of the trial Court 7. he oral and documentary The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary The learned Trial Court, after appreciating t The learned Trial Court, after appreciating t fully evidence led by the parties, recorded the findings that the plaintiffs successfully evidence led by the parties, recorded the findings that the plaintiffs success evidence led by the parties, recorded the findings that the plaintiffs success is the sole proprietor of M/s Shiv Shakti Trading proved that plaintiff No.1 is the sole proprietor of M/s Shiv Shakti Trading is the sole proprietor of M/s Shiv Shakti Trading proved that plaintiff No.1 mmission Company and that the business is a proprietorship concern engaged in commission Company and that the business is a proprietorship concern engaged in co Company and that the business is a proprietorship concern engaged in co agency, and not a partnership firm as alleged by the defendant. The Court held that agency, and not a partnership firm as alleged by the defendant. The Court held that agency, and not a partnership firm as alleged by the defendant. The Court held that agency, and not a partnership firm as alleged by the defendant. The Court held that the plaintiffs placed on record sufficient documentary evidence in the form of the plaintiffs placed on record sufficient documentary evidence in the form of the plaintiffs placed on record sufficient documentary evidence in the form of the plaintiffs placed on record sufficient documentary evidence in the form of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3242-2025 2025 (O&M) -4- income tax returns Ex.P18 to Ex.P23, bank account opening form Ex.P25, and the income tax returns Ex.P18 to Ex.P23, bank account opening form Ex.P25, and the income tax returns Ex.P18 to Ex.P23, bank account opening form Ex.P25, and the income tax returns Ex.P18 to Ex.P23, bank account opening form Ex.P25, and the passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer Ex.P30, all of which corroborated order passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer Ex.P30, all of which corroborated passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer Ex.P30, all of which corroborated passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer Ex.P30, all of which corroborated the proprietorship status of the firm. the proprietorship status of the firm. 8. The Trial Court further found that the defendant was a regular The Trial Court further found that the defendant was a regular The Trial Court further found that the defendant was a regular The Trial Court further found that the defendant was a regular shop of the customer of the plaintiffs and used to supply agricultural produce at the shop of the customer of the plaintiffs and used to supply agricultural produce at the customer of the plaintiffs and used to supply agricultural produce at the plaintiffs. It was proved through the account books Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 that the plaintiffs. It was proved through the account books Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 that the plaintiffs. It was proved through the account books Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 that the plaintiffs. It was proved through the account books Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 that the defendant used to borrow advances from the plaintiffs from time to time, and that defendant used to borrow advances from the plaintiffs from time to time, and that defendant used to borrow advances from the plaintiffs from time to time, and that defendant used to borrow advances from the plaintiffs from time to time, and that the entries in the rokar, rojnamcha, khatas and bahi accounts were duly maintained the entries in the rokar, rojnamcha, khatas and bahi accounts were duly maintained the entries in the rokar, rojnamcha, khatas and bahi accounts were duly maintained the entries in the rokar, rojnamcha, khatas and bahi accounts were duly maintained n the ordinary and regular course of business. The Court held that the in the ordinary and regular course of business. The Court held that the n the ordinary and regular course of business. The Court held that the n the ordinary and regular course of business. The Court held that the signatures/thumb impressions of the defendant on the account entries amounted to signatures/thumb impressions of the defendant on the account entries amounted to signatures/thumb impressions of the defendant on the account entries amounted to signatures/thumb impressions of the defendant on the account entries amounted to acknowledgment of liability and that the plaintiffs had properly proved the entries acknowledgment of liability and that the plaintiffs had properly proved the entries acknowledgment of liability and that the plaintiffs had properly proved the entries acknowledgment of liability and that the plaintiffs had properly proved the entries through PW-1, PW 3. The Court rejected the plea of manipulation or 1, PW-2 and PW-3. The Court rejected the plea of manipulation or 3. The Court rejected the plea of manipulation or fabrication of account entries, observing that the entries in the account books were fabrication of account entries, observing that the entries in the account books were fabrication of account entries, observing that the entries in the account books were fabrication of account entries, observing that the entries in the account books were further corroborated by the income tax return of the plaintiff firm and other further corroborated by the income tax return of the plaintiff firm and other further corroborated by the income tax return of the plaintiff firm and other further corroborated by the income tax return of the plaintiff firm and other documentary evidence. documentary evidence. 9. Trial Court also held that the plea of the defendant The learned Trial Court also held that the plea of the defendant Trial Court also held that the plea of the defendant The learned maintainability of the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs were regarding non-maintainability of the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs were maintainability of the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs were maintainability of the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs were engaged in money lending without licence was without merit. It was concluded engaged in money lending without licence was without merit. It was concluded engaged in money lending without licence was without merit. It was concluded engaged in money lending without licence was without merit. It was concluded n agency business and advancing loan that the plaintiffs are engaged in commission agency business and advancing loan n agency business and advancing loan that the plaintiffs are engaged in commissio to farmers/customers in the regular course of such business does not amount to to farmers/customers in the regular course of such business does not amount to to farmers/customers in the regular course of such business does not amount to to farmers/customers in the regular course of such business does not amount to carrying on the business of money lending so as to attract the provisions of the carrying on the business of money lending so as to attract the provisions of the carrying on the business of money lending so as to attract the provisions of the carrying on the business of money lending so as to attract the provisions of the ld that mere Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act. The Court also held that mere Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act. The Court also he Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act. The Court also he allegations of fraud and fabrication raised by the defendant were unsupported by allegations of fraud and fabrication raised by the defendant were unsupported by allegations of fraud and fabrication raised by the defendant were unsupported by allegations of fraud and fabrication raised by the defendant were unsupported by any evidence and were insufficient to discharge the burden of proof. any evidence and were insufficient to discharge the burden of proof. any evidence and were insufficient to discharge the burden of proof. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3242-2025 2025 (O&M) -5- 10. Upon overall consideration of the evidence, the Trial Court concluded Upon overall consideration of the evidence, the Trial Court concluded Upon overall consideration of the evidence, the Trial Court concluded Upon overall consideration of the evidence, the Trial Court concluded including principal and plaintiffs had proved recovery of Rs. 4,00,000/- including principal and plaintiffs had proved recovery of Rs. 4,00,000/ that the plaintiffs had proved recovery of Rs. 4,00,000/ interest from the defendant, and therefore, decreed the suit with costs. interest from the defendant, and therefore, decreed the suit with costs. interest from the defendant, and therefore, decreed the suit with costs. Findings of the Lower Appellate Court Findings of the Lower Appellate Court 11. oral The learned lower appellate court, after re-appreciating the entire oral The learned lower appellate court, after re The learned lower appellate court, after re and documentary evidence, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial and documentary evidence, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial and documentary evidence, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial and documentary evidence, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. It was held that the plea of the defendant regarding the plaintiff firm being Court. It was held that the plea of the defendant regarding the plaintiff firm being Court. It was held that the plea of the defendant regarding the plaintiff firm being Court. It was held that the plea of the defendant regarding the plaintiff firm being an unregistered partnership firm was without any substance, as the income tax an unregistered partnership firm was without any substance, as the income tax an unregistered partnership firm was without any substance, as the income tax an unregistered partnership firm was without any substance, as the income tax x.P18 to Ex.P23 clearly reflected the plaintiff firm as a proprietorship returns Ex.P18 to Ex.P23 clearly reflected the plaintiff firm as a proprietorship x.P18 to Ex.P23 clearly reflected the plaintiff firm as a proprietorship x.P18 to Ex.P23 clearly reflected the plaintiff firm as a proprietorship concern and the defendant failed to rebut this evidence. The appellate court further concern and the defendant failed to rebut this evidence. The appellate court further concern and the defendant failed to rebut this evidence. The appellate court further concern and the defendant failed to rebut this evidence. The appellate court further observed that the order of the Excise and Taxation Officer Ex.P30 also observed that the order of the Excise and Taxation Officer Ex.P30 also observed that the order of the Excise and Taxation Officer Ex.P30 also observed that the order of the Excise and Taxation Officer Ex.P30 also corroborated the status of 2 as a proprietorship concern carrying on the ted the status of plaintiff No.2 as a proprietorship concern carrying on the 2 as a proprietorship concern carrying on the business of commission agency. It was further noted that the defendant himself, business of commission agency. It was further noted that the defendant himself, business of commission agency. It was further noted that the defendant himself, business of commission agency. It was further noted that the defendant himself, examination, admitted that he had been selling his agricultural during cross-examination, admitted that he had been selling his agricultural examination, admitted that he had been selling his agricultural examination, admitted that he had been selling his agricultural and could not produce any material to produce to the plaintiffs for many years and could not produce any material to and could not produce any material to produce to the plaintiffs for many years show that the plaintiff firm was a partnership firm. The lower appellate court also show that the plaintiff firm was a partnership firm. The lower appellate court also show that the plaintiff firm was a partnership firm. The lower appellate court also show that the plaintiff firm was a partnership firm. The lower appellate court also affirmed the finding that the defendant had acknowledged his liability in the affirmed the finding that the defendant had acknowledged his liability in the affirmed the finding that the defendant had acknowledged his liability in the affirmed the finding that the defendant had acknowledged his liability in the es on Ex.P7 and the ledger account books of the plaintiffs, including his signatures on Ex.P7 and the ledger account books of the plaintiffs, including his signatur account books of the plaintiffs, including his signatur entry Ex.P15, and that the bahi entries Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 had been duly proved by entry Ex.P15, and that the bahi entries Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 had been duly proved by entry Ex.P15, and that the bahi entries Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 had been duly proved by entry Ex.P15, and that the bahi entries Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 had been duly proved by and the plaintiffs and corroborated by the income tax returns Ex.P18 to Ex.P23 and the plaintiffs and corroborated by the income tax returns the plaintiffs and corroborated by the income tax returns endant’s balance sheets Ex.P27 to Ex.P29. The appellate court held that the defendant’s balance sheets Ex.P27 to Ex.P29. The appellate court held that the def balance sheets Ex.P27 to Ex.P29. The appellate court held that the def allegations of manipulation and fraud in the account books were unsupported by allegations of manipulation and fraud in the account books were unsupported by allegations of manipulation and fraud in the account books were unsupported by allegations of manipulation and fraud in the account books were unsupported by serving statements could not rebut the cogent evidence any evidence and mere self-serving statements could not rebut the cogent evidence serving statements could not rebut the cogent evidence any evidence and mere self led by the plaintiffs. It was further held that since the defendant had acknowledged led by the plaintiffs. It was further held that since the defendant had acknowledged led by the plaintiffs. It was further held that since the defendant had acknowledged led by the plaintiffs. It was further held that since the defendant had acknowledged he liability on 30.04.2011, the suit filed on 22.04.2014 was well within the period the liability on 30.04.2011, the suit filed on 22.04.2014 was well within the period he liability on 30.04.2011, the suit filed on 22.04.2014 was well within the period he liability on 30.04.2011, the suit filed on 22.04.2014 was well within the period TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3242-2025 2025 (O&M) -6- of limitation. The appellate court also upheld the rate of interest awarded by the of limitation. The appellate court also upheld the rate of interest awarded by the of limitation. The appellate court also upheld the rate of interest awarded by the of limitation. The appellate court also upheld the rate of interest awarded by the trial Court at 9% per annum, observing that the defendant himself admitted that the trial Court at 9% per annum, observing that the defendant himself admitted that the trial Court at 9% per annum, observing that the defendant himself admitted that the trial Court at 9% per annum, observing that the defendant himself admitted that the iling rate of interest in the market was the same. Concluding that the prevailing rate of interest in the market was the same. Concluding that the iling rate of interest in the market was the same. Concluding that the iling rate of interest in the market was the same. Concluding that the judgment of the learned trial Court was well reasoned, did not suffer from any judgment of the learned trial Court was well reasoned, did not suffer from any judgment of the learned trial Court was well reasoned, did not suffer from any judgment of the learned trial Court was well reasoned, did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, and was based on proper appreciation of evidence, the infirmity or illegality, and was based on proper appreciation of evidence, the infirmity or illegality, and was based on proper appreciation of evidence, the infirmity or illegality, and was based on proper appreciation of evidence, the rt dismissed the appeal with costs. learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal with costs. learned lower appellate cou 12. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the appellant has preferred the present regular second appeal. appellant has preferred the present regular second appeal. appellant has preferred the present regular second appeal.
Legal Reasoning
Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant 13. argued that the impugned judgments Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned judgments argued that the impugned judgments Learned counsel for the appellant and decrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. It was contended and decrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. It was contended and decrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. It was contended and decrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. It was contended that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the argued that the plaintiff documentary evidence produced by the appellant. It was argued that the plaintiff documentary evidence produced by the appellant. It was documentary evidence produced by the appellant. It was firm is an unregistered partnership firm and, therefore, the suit filed by the firm is an unregistered partnership firm and, therefore, the suit filed by the firm is an unregistered partnership firm and, therefore, the suit filed by the firm is an unregistered partnership firm and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act. According to plaintiffs was barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act. According to plaintiffs was barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act. According to plaintiffs was barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act. According to hereas counsel, the plaintiffs have wrongly shown themselves to be proprietors, whereas counsel, the plaintiffs have wrongly shown themselves to be proprietors, w counsel, the plaintiffs have wrongly shown themselves to be proprietors, w the material on record allegedly proves that the firm is a partnership concern. It the material on record allegedly proves that the firm is a partnership concern. It the material on record allegedly proves that the firm is a partnership concern. It the material on record allegedly proves that the firm is a partnership concern. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs did not produce complete bahi khatas, nor was further submitted that the plaintiffs did not produce complete bahi khatas, nor was further submitted that the plaintiffs did not produce complete bahi khatas, nor was further submitted that the plaintiffs did not produce complete bahi khatas, nor did they lead any cogent evidence to prove the entries recorded therein. It was did they lead any cogent evidence to prove the entries recorded therein. It was did they lead any cogent evidence to prove the entries recorded therein. It was did they lead any cogent evidence to prove the entries recorded therein. It was gued that the alleged acknowledgments relied upon by the plaintiffs were beyond argued that the alleged acknowledgments relied upon by the plaintiffs were beyond gued that the alleged acknowledgments relied upon by the plaintiffs were beyond gued that the alleged acknowledgments relied upon by the plaintiffs were beyond limitation and, therefore, of no legal consequence. limitation and, therefore, of no legal consequence. limitation and, therefore, of no legal consequence. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that the balance sheets produced by Learned counsel further submitted that the balance sheets produced by Learned counsel further submitted that the balance sheets produced by Learned counsel further submitted that the balance sheets produced by Tax Department and therefore the plaintiffs were never filed before the Income Tax Department and therefore the plaintiffs were never filed before the Income the plaintiffs were never filed before the Income could not have been relied upon by the Courts below. It was argued that most of could not have been relied upon by the Courts below. It was argued that most of could not have been relied upon by the Courts below. It was argued that most of could not have been relied upon by the Courts below. It was argued that most of the entries in the account books pertain only to interest and, therefore, the same do the entries in the account books pertain only to interest and, therefore, the same do the entries in the account books pertain only to interest and, therefore, the same do the entries in the account books pertain only to interest and, therefore, the same do TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3242-2025 2025 (O&M) -7- appellant. It was not prove that any principal amount was recoverable from the appellant. It was not prove that any principal amount was recoverable from the not prove that any principal amount was recoverable from the (Ex.D4) receipts issued to the appellant at the time of further submitted that Form-J (Ex.D4) receipts issued to the appellant at the time of (Ex.D4) receipts issued to the appellant at the time of further submitted that Form sale of crop were not properly accounted for by the plaintiffs and hence there was sale of crop were not properly accounted for by the plaintiffs and hence there was sale of crop were not properly accounted for by the plaintiffs and hence there was sale of crop were not properly accounted for by the plaintiffs and hence there was . Learned every reason to disbelieve the bahi khatas produced in the case file. Learned every reason to disbelieve the bahi khatas produced in the case file every reason to disbelieve the bahi khatas produced in the case file counsel also submitted that the balance sheets were not proved on record and that counsel also submitted that the balance sheets were not proved on record and that counsel also submitted that the balance sheets were not proved on record and that counsel also submitted that the balance sheets were not proved on record and that even otherwise they were never submitted before the Income Tax authorities, and even otherwise they were never submitted before the Income Tax authorities, and even otherwise they were never submitted before the Income Tax authorities, and even otherwise they were never submitted before the Income Tax authorities, and therefore, the Courts below erred in relying upon the same. It was contended that therefore, the Courts below erred in relying upon the same. It was contended that therefore, the Courts below erred in relying upon the same. It was contended that therefore, the Courts below erred in relying upon the same. It was contended that e law is well settled that the respondents have to stand on their own legs and the law is well settled that the respondents have to stand on their own legs and e law is well settled that the respondents have to stand on their own legs and e law is well settled that the respondents have to stand on their own legs and cannot take benefit of any weakness in the defence of the appellant. cannot take benefit of any weakness in the defence of the appellant. cannot take benefit of any weakness in the defence of the appellant. Findings of this Court Findings of this Court 15. I have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the I have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the I have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the I have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the perused the impugned judgments and material available on record. appellant and perused the impugned judgments and material available on record. perused the impugned judgments and material available on record. perused the impugned judgments and material available on record. However, I do not find myself in agreement with the contentions raised. Both the However, I do not find myself in agreement with the contentions raised. Both the However, I do not find myself in agreement with the contentions raised. Both the However, I do not find myself in agreement with the contentions raised. Both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact after appreciating oral as Courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact after appreciating oral as Courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact after appreciating oral as Courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact after appreciating oral as in detail. The Courts below have recorded well as documentary evidence in detail. The Courts below have recorded in detail. The Courts below have recorded well as documentary evidence categorical findings that the plaintiff firm is a proprietorship concern and not an categorical findings that the plaintiff firm is a proprietorship concern and not an categorical findings that the plaintiff firm is a proprietorship concern and not an categorical findings that the plaintiff firm is a proprietorship concern and not an unregistered partnership firm. These findings are based on income tax returns, unregistered partnership firm. These findings are based on income tax returns, unregistered partnership firm. These findings are based on income tax returns, unregistered partnership firm. These findings are based on income tax returns, ), and the evidence of PW1 to bank documents, Excise and Taxation record (Ex.P30), and the evidence of PW1 to bank documents, Excise and Taxation record (Ex.P30 bank documents, Excise and Taxation record (Ex.P30 PW3. No contrary evidence has been produced by the appellant to rebut these PW3. No contrary evidence has been produced by the appellant to rebut these PW3. No contrary evidence has been produced by the appellant to rebut these PW3. No contrary evidence has been produced by the appellant to rebut these findings. 16. Further, the Courts below have extensively examined the bahi entries, Further, the Courts below have extensively examined the bahi entries, Further, the Courts below have extensively examined the bahi entries, Further, the Courts below have extensively examined the bahi entries, be duly rojnamcha and khata records (Ex.P1 to Ex.P17), and found them to be duly rojnamcha and khata records (Ex.P1 to Ex.P17), and found them to rojnamcha and khata records (Ex.P1 to Ex.P17), and found them to maintained in the ordinary course of business. The signatures of the defendant on maintained in the ordinary course of business. The signatures of the defendant on maintained in the ordinary course of business. The signatures of the defendant on maintained in the ordinary course of business. The signatures of the defendant on Ex.P7 and corresponding entries in Ex.P15 have been admitted by the defendant Ex.P7 and corresponding entries in Ex.P15 have been admitted by the defendant Ex.P7 and corresponding entries in Ex.P15 have been admitted by the defendant Ex.P7 and corresponding entries in Ex.P15 have been admitted by the defendant examination. Once the himself in his written statement as well as during his cross-examination. Once the himself in his written statement as well as during his cross himself in his written statement as well as during his cross TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3242-2025 2025 (O&M) -8- wledgment of liability dated 30.04.2011 stands admitted, the suit filed on acknowledgment of liability dated 30.04.2011 stands admitted, the suit filed on wledgment of liability dated 30.04.2011 stands admitted, the suit filed on wledgment of liability dated 30.04.2011 stands admitted, the suit filed on 22.04.2014 is clearly within limitation. The defence that the signatures were 22.04.2014 is clearly within limitation. The defence that the signatures were 22.04.2014 is clearly within limitation. The defence that the signatures were 22.04.2014 is clearly within limitation. The defence that the signatures were obtained fraudulently has been rightly rejected by the Courts below, as mere oral obtained fraudulently has been rightly rejected by the Courts below, as mere oral obtained fraudulently has been rightly rejected by the Courts below, as mere oral obtained fraudulently has been rightly rejected by the Courts below, as mere oral splace positive documentary evidence. allegations cannot displace positive documentary evidence. allegations cannot di 17. The lower Appellate Court has also rightly held that merely because The lower Appellate Court has also rightly held that merely because The lower Appellate Court has also rightly held that merely because The lower Appellate Court has also rightly held that merely because the plaintiffs advanced money to a customer does not make them money lenders, the plaintiffs advanced money to a customer does not make them money lenders, the plaintiffs advanced money to a customer does not make them money lenders, the plaintiffs advanced money to a customer does not make them money lenders, ts. The findings as the transactions are incidental to their work as commission agents. The findings as the transactions are incidental to their work as commission agen as the transactions are incidental to their work as commission agen recorded on Issues No.1 to 5 are well reasoned, supported by evidence, and do not recorded on Issues No.1 to 5 are well reasoned, supported by evidence, and do not recorded on Issues No.1 to 5 are well reasoned, supported by evidence, and do not recorded on Issues No.1 to 5 are well reasoned, supported by evidence, and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. suffer from any illegality or perversity. Conclusion 18. In view of the above and applying the settled legal principles, this In view of the above and applying the settled legal principles, this In view of the above and applying the settled legal principles, this In view of the above and applying the settled legal principles, this judgments are based on concurrent findings of fact, Court finds that the impugned judgments are based on concurrent findings of fact, judgments are based on concurrent findings of fact, Court finds that the impugned which cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be perverse. which cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be perverse. which cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be perverse. which cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be perverse. Accordingly, the present RSA is dismissed in limine, without issuing notice to the Accordingly, the present RSA is dismissed in limine, without issuing notice to the Accordingly, the present RSA is dismissed in limine, without issuing notice to the Accordingly, the present RSA is dismissed in limine, without issuing notice to the respondents. 19.
Decision
any, also stand disposed off. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. Pending applications, if , 2025 December 09, 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 2025.12.10 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document