LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

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.


                                                              REPORTABLE


                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5140 OF 2004


Gurmukh Singh                                ..           Appellant


      -versus-


Jaswant Kaur                                 ..           Respondent




                           J U D G M E N T




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


                                                                                          2



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.


                                                                                      3



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.





                                           ...................................J.

                                           (Markandey Katju)





                                           ...................................J.

                                           (Gyan Sudha Misra)


New Delhi;

April 04, 2011