IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.147/2025 Date of Decision: 30.06.2025. Beer Singh .....Appellant. Versus Gian Chand …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Ms. Reeta Hingmang and Mr. Mridul Nag, Advocates. For the Respondent : Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). This regular second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2024 dated 18.3.2025, whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 278 of 2022 has been affirmed. 2. The parties shall be referred to as the "plaintiff" and the "defendant" in this judgment, consistent with their designation in the judgment of the learned trial Court. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present second appeal, arising after the dismissal of the first appeal, are as follows. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for the recovery of ₹4,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 annum, alleging that the defendant, who was his friend, owned an orchard situated at Phati and Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, comprising approximately 150 plants of apple, plum, pear, and other fruits. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the fruit crop of this orchard from the defendant for the years 2017 to 2019 for a total consideration of ₹2,10,000/-, with an agreement executed between them on 10.04.2017. A sum of ₹1,10,000/- was paid to the defendant at the time of the agreement in the presence of witnesses, namely Sh. Ravinder Chand, Advocate, and Balak Ram, while the remaining amount was to be paid in two instalments ₹70,000/- in September 2018 and ₹40,000/- in September 2019. 3. In September 2018, when the plaintiff was making the payment of ₹70,000/-, the defendant allegedly demanded the entire remaining balance of ₹1,10,000/-. The plaintiff claimed to have paid the full amount, and the defendant executed a written receipt on the reverse of the agreement. As per the terms of the agreement, any breach of conditions would render the defendant liable to pay double the amount to the plaintiff. On 25.04.2019, when the plaintiff visited the orchard for maintenance, he was allegedly prevented from entering, threatened, and stopped from harvesting the fruits for the 2019 season. Consequently, the plaintiff lodged FIR No. 111/2019 dated 29.04.2019. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had violated the agreement by denying him access to the orchard despite receiving full payment, thereby making him liable to 3 pay double the amount, i.e., ₹4,20,000/-. The cause of action was stated to have arisen on 25.04.2019, when the defendant refused the plaintiff’s claim, leading to the filing of the suit. 4. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, lack of cause of action, unclean hands of the plaintiff, improper valuation, and limitation. On merits, the defendant admitted the execution of the agreement for the sale of the fruit crop for ₹2,10,000/- but denied the remaining allegations. He asserted that the plaintiff had failed to pay the remaining installments despite repeated requests and that the defendant had never demanded or received the full balance amount. The defendant further claimed that after the 2018 fruit season, the plaintiff neglected the orchard and did not return for maintenance. He denied preventing the plaintiff from entering the orchard and alleged that the Gram Panchayat, Karadsu, through its Pradhan Smt. Gudi Devi, had even requested the plaintiff to harvest the crop in 2018, but he refused. The defendant also stated that he had served a legal notice dated 24.06.2019 for the balance payment and to harvest the plum crop, but the plaintiff failed to comply. The defendant sought dismissal of the suit. 5. The plaintiff filed a replication, reiterating the plaint’s averments and denying the defendant’s claims. Based on the 4 pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues on 25.05.2022: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the suit amount along with interest, as prayed for? (OPP); (2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? (OPD); (3) Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action to maintain the suit against the defendant? (OPD); (4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (OPD); (5) Whether the suit is properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction? (OPD) (6) Relief. 6. Both parties led oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, HC Rajesh Kumar (MHC of Police Station, Kullu) as PW-2, and Balak Ram as PW-3, relying on the FIR (Ext. PW2/A) and the agreement (Ext. PW3/B). The defendant testified as DW-2 and examined former Pradhan Smt. Guddi Devi as DW-1, producing a legal notice (Ext. DW2/A) and postal receipt (Ext. DW2/B). 7. After hearing the parties and examining the evidence, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for recovery of ₹1,40,000/-, deciding issues No. 1 and 2 partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative, while issues No. 3 to 5 were decided in the negative. Dissatisfied with this judgment and decree dated 07.08.2024, the defendant filed a first appeal, which was dismissed. The defendant has now preferred the present second appeal, challenging the judgment and decree on grounds of 5 being contrary to law, facts, and principles of natural justice. It is contended that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the pleadings and evidence correctly, misapplied the law, and arrived at erroneous findings. The defendant asserts that the trial Court misconstrued the evidence, ignored the defendant’s pleadings, and relied disproportionately on the plaintiff’s testimony, leading to an unsustainable judgment. The findings are alleged to be perverse, contrary to the record, and liable to be set aside. The issues framed by the trial Court remain unchanged for adjudication in this second appeal. 8. The plaintiff testified as PW-1 and presented two additional witnesses in support of his case. He produced an affidavit reiterating the facts in the plaint, stating that he purchased the defendant’s fruit crop for 2017 to 2019 for ₹2,10,000/-, with an agreement executed on 10.04.2017. He admitted paying ₹1,00,000/- at the time of the agreement and the remaining ₹1,10,000/- in September 2019, for which the defendant allegedly gave a receipt. The plaintiff claimed he was later prevented from entering the orchard to pluck the 2019 crop and lodged an FIR for the same. The defendant denied receipt of the second installment and asserted that the plaintiff did not pluck the 2019 crop. The defendant admitted the agreement but disowned signatures on the receipt and agreement, while also denying threats to the plaintiff. The PW-3 Balak Ram corroborated the plaintiff’s version, confirming 6 the execution of the agreement and payment. The defendant’s contradictory statements regarding his signatures diminished his credibility. Notably, the defendant did not seek any expert opinion or legal recourse to disprove the authenticity of the signatures, which weakens his defense. The FIR filed by the plaintiff was not shown to be false or cancelled after investigation. Though the defendant relied on notices and intervention by the Pradhan after the FIR, these efforts occurred only after the plaintiff had allegedly paid the full amount. The plaintiff’s inability to pluck the 2019 crop despite full payment indicates obstruction by the defendant, causing the plaintiff’s loss. The trial court properly appreciated the evidence and rightly decreed recovery of ₹1,40,000/- with interest and costs. The judgment and decree are legally and factually sound, and the appeal deserves dismissal. 9. In view of above discussion, there arises no question of law, much less a substantial question of law in the present appeal. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 30th June, 2025 (Tarun/T.B)