RSA-1509- -2022 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D v. Singh Balbir Singh
Case Details
RSA-1509- -2022 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 116 1. RSA-1509-2022 Singh Parsan Singh .…Appellant Versus Singh Balbir Singh ....Respondent 2. RSA-374-2020 (O&M) Lakhbir Sing ir Singh .…Appellant Versus Singh Balbir Singh ....Respondent 3. &M) RSA-1133-2020 (O&M) Darshan Sing an Singh .…Appellant Versus Singh Balbir Singh ....Respondent Date of Decision: 06.05.2025 Date o CORAM: H M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: -
Legal Reasoning
dvocate Mr. Raj Kapoor Malik, Advoca cases). for the appellant(s) (in all cases) NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. 1. RSA-1509-2022 (Parsan Singh Singh vs. Balbir Singh) The plaintiff is in second ap rent nd appeal against the concurrent judgments a ents and decrees rendered by both th the oth the Courts below, whereby the RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1509- -2022 (O&M) -2- Suit for Rec or Recovery of ₹5,00,000/- along wit ng with interest @ 12% per annum filed by the a y the appellant, has been dismissed. 2. CM-986-C C-2020 in RSA-374-2020 RSA-374-2020 (O&M) (Lakhb Lakhbir Singh vs. Balbir Singh) Prayer in this application filed under Prayer tion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 1963 is for condonation of delay the delay of 18 days in filing the accompanyin panying appeal (RSA-374-2020). Heard. For the reasons stated in the ap rted the application which is supported by an affida affidavit, the same is allowed; and d the and delay of 18 days in filing the accompanyin panying appeal is condoned. RSA-374-20 2020 The plaintiff is in second ap rent nd appeal against the concurrent judgments a ents and decrees rendered by both th Suit oth the Court below, whereby Suit for Recovery covery of ₹10,00,000/- along with int was ith interest @ 12% per annum, was dismissed. 3. CM-3572-C C-2020 in RSA-1133-2020 RSA-1133-2020 (O&M) (Dars Darshan Singh vs. Balbir Singh) Prayer in this application fil the on filed under Section 5 of the Limitation A tion Act, 1963 is for condonation of the on of delay of 16 days in filing the accompanyin panying appeal (RSA-1133-2020). Heard. For the reasons stated in the ap rted the application which is supported by an affida affidavit, the same is allowed; and d the and delay of 16 days in filing the accompanyin panying appeal is condoned. RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1509- -2022 (O&M) -3- RSA-1133- -2020 The plaintiff-appellant is in the is in second appeal against the concurrent j rrent judgments and decrees rendere low, endered by both the Court below, whereby Sui by Suit for Recovery of ₹10,00,000/- per - along with interest @ 12% per annum was d was dismissed. RSA Nos. 15 os. 1509-2022; RSA No.374-2020; a 020; and RSA No.1133-2020: 1. All the aforementioned 03 seco osed 3 second appeals are being disposed of by this co this common order as the facts, issues issues and parties involved in all the second appe appeals are identical. For the sake of eing sake of convenience, facts are being extracted fro ted from RSA-1509-2022 titled as ‘Par Parsan Singh vs. Balbir Singh’. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be atus fter be referred to as per their status before the le the learned trial Court i.e. the appella the appellant is being referred to as ‘the plaintiff’, wh whereas the respondent as ‘the def defendant’. 3. Brief facts of the case are that th filed that the appellant-plaintiff had filed a suit for rec recovery of ₹5,00,000/- along with . It g with interest @ 12% per annum. It was the plea e pleaded case of the plaintiff that the the hat the defendant had requested the plaintiff to a ff to advance a friendly loan of ₹5,00 reed 5,00,000/-. Defendant had agreed to return the rn the same with interest @ 12% per that % per annum. However, more that 02 years ha ars have elapsed, the defendant did nt did not repay the said amount despite repea e repeated requests by the plaintiff. Th egal . The plaintiff first issued a legal notice dated dated 27.12.2012 to the defendant. had dant. However, the defendant had refused to ta d to take delivery of the notice. As su the As such, the plaintiff had filed the present suit o t suit on 23.01.2013. 4. Vide judgment and decree dated trial e dated 22.01.2016, the learned trial Court dismis dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with the f with costs. The appeal filed by the RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1509- -2022 (O&M) -4- plaintiff aga ff against the said judgment and decre also d decree dated 22.01.2016, was also dismissed v sed vide judgment and decree da ree dated 13.01.2020 by the ld. Additional D onal District Judge, Kurukshetra, the ent ra, thereby upholding the judgment and decree p ecree passed by the learned trial Cou ond l Court. Hence, the present second appeal. 5. It is, inter alia, submitted b the itted by learned counsel for the appellant tha ant that both the Courts below have wr the ave wrongly and illegally mixed the amount borr borrowed by the defendant and the and the amount received by the defendant as ant as earnest money against the Sale It is e Sale Deed Dated 12.07.2010. It is submitted th tted that the plaintiff had duly prove rate proved that these are two separate transactions ctions which were not interlinked wit ner. ed with each other in any manner. The learned earned Courts below have ignored iff’s nored and misread the plaintiff’s evidence wh ce whereby the plaintiff has clearly pr ons. arly proved 02 separate transactions. It is conten ontended that the present transactio the sactions had no concern with the earnest mon t money qua sale deed dated 12.07.20 urts .07.2010. In this regard, the Courts below did no did not consider the affidavit dated 24 shan 24.12.2012 (Ex. P-7) of Krishan Kumar from from which it is clear that the amoun nt to amount paid towards Agreement to Sell dated ated 12.07.2010 was in cash and was hus, d was not through the Bank. Thus, there is man is manifest error in the judgments an urts nts and decrees of both the Courts below. It is t is accordingly prayed that all th s be all the aforementioned appeals be allowed and d and the judgments and decrees of b be of both the Courts below may be set aside. 6. No other argument has been rai r the en raised by learned counsel for the ant(s). appellant(s). RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1509- -2022 (O&M) -5- 7. I have heard learned counse ounsel for the appellant(s) and perused the c d the case file in great detail. 8. I find no merit in the submis submissions advanced by learned counsel for t el for the appellant-plaintiff. The trans transfer of ₹5,00,000/- from the account of th nt of the plaintiff to the account of th t of the defendant is not disputed. However, it ver, it is the clear stand of the defend defendant in the written statement which is sup is supported by the cogent evidence idence led by him, that the said amount of t of ₹5,00,000/- was transferred by t d by the plaintiff as part payment of earnest m nest money given in pursuance to th e to the Agreement to Sell dated 12.07.2010 2010 Mark-DA/Ex.D1, executed betw d between defendant-Balbir Singh and brother other of the plaintiff, namely, Darsha arshan Singh (appellant in RSA- 1133-2020) 2020). As per the said Agreement ement to Sell dated 12.07.2010, Darshan Sin an Singh had agreed to purchase land e land measuring 1422 Sq. Yards i.e. 47 Marla Marlas situated in the Revenue Estate Estate of village Sunderpur, from the defendan fendant for a total sale consideration o ation of ₹2,44,00,000/-. Out of this sale amount mount,₹50,00,000/- was paid as earn s earnest money i.e. ₹25,00,000/- was given in iven in cash; and transfer of ₹25,00,00 ,00,000/- was made through bank transactions ctions by the appellants in the presen present appeals i.e. (i) ₹5,00,000/- by appellan pellant-Parsan Singh (in RSA-150 1509-2022); ₹10,00,000/- by appellant-La Lakhbir Singh (in RSA-374-20 2020); and ₹10,00,000/- by appellant-Da Darshan Singh (in RSA-1133-2020 2020). 9. The defendant had duly proved roved on record the photocopy of Agreement ment to Sell dated 12.07.2010 as E as Ex. D-1/Mark DA from the evidence of ce of DW-2 Randhir Singh Saini, Saini, Advocate Notary Public, District Cou t Court, Kurukshetra. In fact, the plai e plaintiff himself did not dispute RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1509- -2022 (O&M) -6- the executio ecution of Agreement to Sell dated dated 12.07.2010 (Ex.D-1/Mark- DA).The fac he fact that the said monies were tran re transferred by the appellants in the account o count of the defendant towards payme payment of earnest money and not by way of l y of loan is also borne out from th om the fact that no pronote was executed bet ted between the plaintiff and the defen e defendant for the alleged loan of ₹5,00,000/- -. It has been contended by the p the plaintiff that the said amount was given iven by him to the defendant in the p n the presence of Krishan Kumar. However, th ver, the plaintiff has failed to examine amine said Krishan Kumar. 10. Further, there are inexplicable d cable discrepancies in the case put forth by the y the plaintiffs, inasmuch as, in the p n the plaint it has been mentioned that the afore e aforesaid amount of ₹5,00,000/- was was given by the plaintiff to the defendant on on 12.07.2010 for a period of 02 m of 02 months; whereas in the legal notice dated dated 27.12.2012, it was mentione entioned that the said loan was advanced fo ced for a period of 02 years. Moreo Moreover, father of the plaintiff, namely, Lak y, Lakhbir Singh/PW8 (appellant in R in RSA-374-2020) had deposed on oath adm admitting that a sum of ₹39,00,000 0,000/-in cash was lying with his son Darshan arshan Singh-appellant (in RSA-113 1133-2020) plus an amount of ₹11,00,000/ ,000/- was withdrawn by him from h rom his account towards payment of earnest m nest money. Even the execution of ion of Agreement to Sell dated 12.07.2010 ( 2010 (Ex.D-1/Mark-DA) has not been ot been denied by PW-8. As such, it does stand s stand to reason that a person to who o whom ₹50,00,000/- was paid as earnest mone t money will require a friendly loan of oan of ₹5,00,000/-. Moreover, it is not clear tha ar that if a loan was advanced by the y the plaintiff for a period of only 02 months, onths, then why legal notice was se was sent after 02 years only on 2012. 27.12.2012. RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1509- -2022 (O&M) -7- 11. Learned counsel for the appe appellant-plaintiff is unable to dispute or co e or controvert the above said facts and s and findings. 12. In view of the discussion cussion here-in-above, all the aforemention entioned 03 appeals bearing RSA No SA No.1509-2022; RSA No. 374- 2020; and and RSA No.1133-2020 are dismisse missed. 13. Pending application(s) (in all (in all the appeals) if any also stand(s) disp
Decision
s) disposed of. 14. A photocopy of this order be er be placed on the files of other connected ca cted cases. 2025 06.05.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.