Gurmukh Singh Vs. Jaswant Kaur
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5140 of 2004
[From the Judgement and Order dated 11.08.2003 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 1069 of 2002]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 11.08.2003 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 1069 of 2002]
Petitioner: Gurmukh Singh
Respondent: Jaswant Kaur
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5140 of 2004
[From the Judgement and Order dated 11.08.2003 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 1069 of 2002]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 11.08.2003 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 1069 of 2002]
Judges: Markandey Katju & Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 04, 2011
Appearances:
Appearances
Mr. A.V. Palli, Mrs. Rekha Palli, Advocates, for the Appellant(s).
Mr. K.G. Bhagat, Mrs. Manju Bhagat, Dr. Manohar Singh Bakshi, Mr. Vineet Bhagat, Mr. Debasis Misra, Advocates, for the Respondent(s).
Mr. A.V. Palli, Mrs. Rekha Palli, Advocates, for the Appellant(s).
Mr. K.G. Bhagat, Mrs. Manju Bhagat, Dr. Manohar Singh Bakshi, Mr. Vineet Bhagat, Mr. Debasis Misra, Advocates, for the Respondent(s).
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 136 – Interference by Supreme Court – Findings of fact – All the Courts below found that stamp affixed on pronote was removed from other documents – Pronote not taken into consideration – Suit dismissed and approved by appellate Court. Held that Supreme Court will not interfere in such findings. Appeal dismissed. (Paras 5-7)
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 136 – Interference by Supreme Court – Findings of fact – All the Courts below found that stamp affixed on pronote was removed from other documents – Pronote not taken into consideration – Suit dismissed and approved by appellate Court. Held that Supreme Court will not interfere in such findings. Appeal dismissed. (Paras 5-7)
JUDGEMENT:
Markandey Katju, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.8.2003 in R.S.A. No.1069 of 2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,31,000/-. He claimed that the defendant had executed a pronote and receipt dated 2.5.1994 whereby the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same along with interest @ 2% per annum on demand. Since the defendant had not paid the aforesaid amount, the suit was filed.
4. The defendant-respondent contested the suit and denied the execution of the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. She alleged that the aforesaid pronote and receipt were forged and fictitious documents.
5. The trial court on the basis of evidence found that the pronote and receipt were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. However, the trial court rejected the plaintiff’s claim by holding that the said documents were not duly stamped as required under the provisions of Indian Stamps Act. It was found by the trial court that the stamps which were affixed on the pronote were removed from another document and affixed on the said pronote.
6. The first appellate court and the High Court have agreed with the view of the trial court. Thus all the three courts below decided against the appellant.
7. The findings of the courts below are findings of fact and we cannot interfere with the same in this appeal. The finding is that the stamps which have been affixed were removed from other documents, and hence, it has rightly been said that such a pronote cannot be taken into consideration.
8. Thus there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. No costs.
************
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.8.2003 in R.S.A. No.1069 of 2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,31,000/-. He claimed that the defendant had executed a pronote and receipt dated 2.5.1994 whereby the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same along with interest @ 2% per annum on demand. Since the defendant had not paid the aforesaid amount, the suit was filed.
4. The defendant-respondent contested the suit and denied the execution of the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. She alleged that the aforesaid pronote and receipt were forged and fictitious documents.
5. The trial court on the basis of evidence found that the pronote and receipt were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. However, the trial court rejected the plaintiff’s claim by holding that the said documents were not duly stamped as required under the provisions of Indian Stamps Act. It was found by the trial court that the stamps which were affixed on the pronote were removed from another document and affixed on the said pronote.
6. The first appellate court and the High Court have agreed with the view of the trial court. Thus all the three courts below decided against the appellant.
7. The findings of the courts below are findings of fact and we cannot interfere with the same in this appeal. The finding is that the stamps which have been affixed were removed from other documents, and hence, it has rightly been said that such a pronote cannot be taken into consideration.
8. Thus there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. No costs.
************
