IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 258 Avtar Singh Gurjant Singh CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. against the concurrent whereby the joint owner in joint possession of sarsahi as described in the plaint; and consequential relie injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. 2. status before the learned trial Court i.e. respondent as “ 3. 18.08.2006, the plaintiff had borrowed an amount of Rs.6,50,000/ from the defendant in the presence of Paramjit Singh Namberdar and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vs. Gurjant Singh HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the respondent. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present second appeal has been filed by the concurrent judgments and decree the suit of the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is joint owner in joint possession of suit land measuring 7 kanal 10 marla 7 ahi as described in the plaint; and consequential relie injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. as “defendant”. Brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that , the plaintiff had borrowed an amount of Rs.6,50,000/ from the defendant in the presence of Paramjit Singh Namberdar and p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-567-2021(O&M) Date of decision: 25.03.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate Present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff and decrees of the learned Courts below suit of the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is land measuring 7 kanal 10 marla 7 ahi as described in the plaint; and consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. appellant as “plaintiff” and e case as set out in the plaint are that on , the plaintiff had borrowed an amount of Rs.6,50,000/-in cash from the defendant in the presence of Paramjit Singh Namberdar and 8 plaintiff of the learned Courts below suit of the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is land measuring 7 kanal 10 marla 7 f of permanent The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their plaintiff” and on in cash from the defendant in the presence of Paramjit Singh Namberdar and SUNENA 2025.03.28 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Lakhwinder Singh. defendant along with monthly interest of 1%. However, the defendant exercised misrepresentation and coercion on the plaintiff and compelled him to execute a Sale Deed in respect of the land of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant as a security of loan a agreement was also executed between the parties wherein the terms and conditions of loan amount received by the plaintiff from the defendant were incorporated. In the first week of money for repayment, some pretext or the other. In defendant however, he refused to accept the loan amount interest. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 28.07.2012 4. appeared through counsel Besides formal objections, it was pleaded in the written statemen alleged Agreement dated 18.08.2006 fabricated document and the defendant did not sign the purport agreement. It the alleged agreement dated 18.08.2006 the same ha defendant in connivance with the scribe and marginal witness misrepresenting the defendant. It Lakhwinder Singh. The plaintiff had promised to return the same to the efendant along with monthly interest of 1%. However, the defendant exercised misrepresentation and coercion on the plaintiff and compelled him to execute a Sale Deed in respect of the land of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant as a security of loan amount. On the same day, a written agreement was also executed between the parties wherein the terms and conditions of loan amount received by the plaintiff from the defendant were incorporated. In the first week of August repayment, but the defendant kept some pretext or the other. In July 2012, the plaintiff again approached the defendant however, he refused to accept the loan amount Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 28.07.2012 Notice of the suit was given to the defendant through counsel and resisted the suit by filing written statement. Besides formal objections, it was pleaded in the written statemen alleged Agreement dated 18.08.2006 is a false, forged, fictitious and fabricated document and the defendant did not sign the purport agreement. It was further stated that if the signatures of the defendant on the alleged agreement dated 18.08.2006 were the same had been fraudulently procured by the plaintiff from the defendant in connivance with the scribe and marginal witness misrepresenting the defendant. It was stated that the scribe of the sale p. 2 plaintiff had promised to return the same to the efendant along with monthly interest of 1%. However, the defendant exercised misrepresentation and coercion on the plaintiff and compelled him to execute a Sale Deed in respect of the land of the plaintiff in favour of mount. On the same day, a written agreement was also executed between the parties wherein the terms and conditions of loan amount received by the plaintiff from the defendant August 2011, the plaintiff arranged kept putting off the matter on 2012, the plaintiff again approached the defendant however, he refused to accept the loan amount back along with Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 28.07.2012. suit was given to the defendant who and resisted the suit by filing written statement. Besides formal objections, it was pleaded in the written statement that the is a false, forged, fictitious and fabricated document and the defendant did not sign the purported further stated that if the signatures of the defendant on were proved to be genuine, then been fraudulently procured by the plaintiff from the defendant in connivance with the scribe and marginal witnesses by stated that the scribe of the sale 8 plaintiff had promised to return the same to the efendant along with monthly interest of 1%. However, the defendant exercised misrepresentation and coercion on the plaintiff and compelled him to execute a Sale Deed in respect of the land of the plaintiff in favour of mount. On the same day, a written agreement was also executed between the parties wherein the terms and conditions of loan amount received by the plaintiff from the defendant 2011, the plaintiff arranged putting off the matter on 2012, the plaintiff again approached the along with who and resisted the suit by filing written statement. the is a false, forged, fictitious and ed further stated that if the signatures of the defendant on proved to be genuine, then been fraudulently procured by the plaintiff from the es by stated that the scribe of the sale SUNENA 2025.03.28 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document deed dated 18.08.2006 had obtained the signatures of defendant on several documents and the defendant had appended his signatures on all the documents in good faith believing th documents of sale deed dated 18.08.2006. Remaining averments denied, and it 5. statement was 6. were framed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 03.04.2013: file the present suit? OPD forged and fictitious document? OPD 7. evidence adduced by the parties, deed dated 18.08.2006 had obtained the signatures of defendant on several documents and the defendant had appended his signatures on all the documents in good faith believing th documents of sale deed dated 18.08.2006. Remaining averments and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. Replication controverting the contents of written was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the averments of the plaint. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 03.04.2013: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and joint possession in the property in dispute as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit has not b purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 8. Whether the alleged agreement dated 18.08.2006 is false, forged and fictitious document? OPD 9. Relief.” On the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Court decided issues p. 3 deed dated 18.08.2006 had obtained the signatures of defendant on several documents and the defendant had appended his signatures on all the documents in good faith believing the same to be the part of documents of sale deed dated 18.08.2006. Remaining averments were prayed that the suit be dismissed. Replication controverting the contents of written reiterating the averments of the plaint. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 03.04.2013:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and joint possession in the property in dispute as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent plaintiff is not maintainable in the 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to 5. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the 6. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the 8. Whether the alleged agreement dated 18.08.2006 is false, forged and fictitious document? OPD On the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary the learned trial Court decided issues 8 deed dated 18.08.2006 had obtained the signatures of defendant on several documents and the defendant had appended his signatures on all e same to be the part of were Replication controverting the contents of written On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and joint possession in the property in dispute as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent plaintiff is not maintainable in the 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to 5. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the een properly valued for the 7. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the 8. Whether the alleged agreement dated 18.08.2006 is false, SUNENA 2025.03.28 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document No.1 and 8 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant was restrained from or from dispossessing the plaintiff illegally and forcibly from the suit land issue no.3 was decided against the defendant; issue no.4 was decided against the defendant; issue no.5 was held redundant; issue no.6 was decided against the defendant; issue no.7 was decided defendant; and accordingly, vide judgment the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs by the learned trial court 8. costs, yet plaintiff filed appeal which was dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated present second appeal by the plaintiff. 9. appellant/plaintiff that the loan transaction was proved before both the Courts below. However, no finding is given by learned Courts respect of the alleged Sale Deed. It is submitted that accordingly, on money decree is passed 28.07.2012the interest should be 6% and not 12% submitted that the respondent/defendant. As such, application filed b bearing No.CM regard, copy of order dated 15.07.2023 passed by learned ACJSD/Jgn. in No.1 and 8 in favour of the plaintiff; issue No.2 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant was restrained from alienating the suit land in any manner or from dispossessing the plaintiff illegally and forcibly from the suit land issue no.3 was decided against the defendant; issue no.4 was decided against the defendant; issue no.5 was held redundant; issue no.6 was decided against the defendant; issue no.7 was decided defendant; and accordingly, vide judgment the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs by the learned trial court Even though suit of the plaintiff had plaintiff filed appeal which was dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated present second appeal by the plaintiff. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the loan transaction was proved before both the Courts below. However, no finding is given by learned Courts respect of the alleged Sale Deed. It is submitted that accordingly, on money decree is passed, then even for the period 18.08.2006 to the interest should be 6% and not 12% submitted that the principal amount already stand respondent/defendant. As such, application filed b bearing No.CM-5204-C-2023 for release of amount is infructuous. In this regard, copy of order dated 15.07.2023 passed by learned ACJSD/Jgn. in p. 4 issue No.2 in favour of the plaintiff alienating the suit land in any manner or from dispossessing the plaintiff illegally and forcibly from the suit land; issue no.3 was decided against the defendant; issue no.4 was decided against the defendant; issue no.5 was held redundant; issue no.6 was decided against the defendant; issue no.7 was decided against the defendant; and accordingly, vide judgment and decree dated 10.8.2018, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs by the learned trial court. Even though suit of the plaintiff had been decreed with plaintiff filed appeal which was dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.1.2020. Hence, It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the loan transaction was proved before both the Courts below. However, no finding is given by learned Courts below in respect of the alleged Sale Deed. It is submitted that accordingly, once even for the period 18.08.2006 to the interest should be 6% and not 12% per annum. It is further amount already stands released to the respondent/defendant. As such, application filed by the respondent for release of amount is infructuous. In this regard, copy of order dated 15.07.2023 passed by learned ACJSD/Jgn. in 8 SUNENA 2025.03.28 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM/118/22 titled as “Gurjant Singh Vs. Avtar Singh” is handed over in the Court which is taken o for parties as CM/118/22 titled as “Gurjant Singh Vs. Avtar Singh” is handed over in the Court which is taken on record and the same re “Heard on application for releasing of the amount deposited by JD in sub treasury office Jagraon. File perused. JD Avtar Singh suffered statement on 11.07.2023 that he has no objection if the application for releasing of amount deposited by him in the Sub Treasury office Jagraon be allowed and amount released in favour of applicant/DH Gurjant Singh. It is also contended that their RSA pending only qua reducing the interest rate and qua the principal and JD himself made statement that the amount which he had deposited as per the order of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh be released in favour of applicant/DH Gurjant Singh. It is also contented by Id. Counsel for parties as well as parties in person that only alienation of the property in question had been stayed and nothing else and present application is not regarding alienation rather for the other purpose i.e. for taking the amount which was deposited by JD in favour of DH. So, in view of the statement made by JD Avtar Singh himself duly counter signed by his counsel and as per the application, same is hereby allowed, subject to the outcome of final orders of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, if any as DH undertaking with effect that if in RSA pending before Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh there is any modification or other orders, so passed, in the order regarding interest which is pending, then if the same is reduced, then he is bound to return the amount to the JD and to follow the orders of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High p. 5 CM/118/22 titled as “Gurjant Singh Vs. Avtar Singh” is handed over in the d and the same reads as follows: - Heard on application for releasing of the amount deposited by JD in sub treasury office Jagraon. File perused. JD Avtar Singh suffered statement on 11.07.2023 that he has no releasing of amount deposited by him in the Sub Treasury office Jagraon be allowed and amount released in favour of applicant/DH Gurjant Singh. It is also contended that their RSA pending only qua reducing the erest rate and qua the principal amount there is no stay and JD himself made statement that the amount which he had deposited as per the order of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh be released in favour of applicant/DH Gurjant Singh. It is also contented by Id. Counsel well as parties in person that only alienation of the property in question had been stayed and nothing else and present application is not regarding alienation rather for the other purpose i.e. for taking the amount which was DH. So, in view of the statement tar Singh himself duly counter signed by his counsel and as per the application, same is hereby allowed, subject to the outcome of final orders of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, if any as DH will furnish an undertaking with effect that if in RSA pending before Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh there is any modification or other orders, so passed, in the order regarding interest which is pending, then if the same is en he is bound to return the amount to the JD and to follow the orders of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High 8 SUNENA 2025.03.28 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document furnishing affidavit with that regard. 10. Sale Deed on the basis of which the plaintiff was claiming ownership in possession over the suit property, was declared null and void by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated was duly affirmed by the decree dated 29.01.2020 appeal is only to the rate of interest for the period 18.08.2006 which money was 28.07.2012 - submitted that no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. Learne accordingly prays for dismissal of the present appeal. 11. through the case file in great detail. 12. appellant/plaintiff to submit tha trial court in respect of the Sale Deed. A perusal of the judgment dated 10.8.2018 shows that the learner trial court has categorically held that Court, Chandigarh in the said RSA in letter and sprit. Accordingly, application in hand is allowed, subject to furnishing affidavit with that regard. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the on the basis of which the plaintiff was claiming ownership in possession over the suit property, was declared null and void by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated was duly affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.01.2020. It is submitted that challenge in the present appeal is only to the rate of interest for the period 18.08.2006 which money was borrowed by the plaintiff, - which has been granted at the rate of 12% submitted that no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. Learne accordingly prays for dismissal of the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file in great detail. It is patently incorrect for learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff to submit that no finding has been given by the learned trial court in respect of the Sale Deed. A perusal of the judgment dated 10.8.2018 shows that the learner trial court has categorically held that “18...the sale deed dated 18.08.2006 is hereby declared null and void on the payment of Rs. 6,50,000/ p. 6 Court, Chandigarh in the said RSA in letter and sprit. Accordingly, application in hand is allowed, subject to furnishing affidavit with that regard.” Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the on the basis of which the plaintiff was claiming ownership in possession over the suit property, was declared null and void by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.08.2018; which learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and . It is submitted that challenge in the present appeal is only to the rate of interest for the period 18.08.2006/the date on , up till date of filing of suit on which has been granted at the rate of 12% per annum. It is submitted that no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. Learned counsel accordingly prays for dismissal of the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone It is patently incorrect for learned Counsel for the t no finding has been given by the learned trial court in respect of the Sale Deed. A perusal of the judgment dated 10.8.2018 shows that the learner trial court has categorically held that:- the sale deed dated 18.08.2006 is hereby declared null and void on the payment of Rs. 6,50,000/- by the plaintiff to 8 SUNENA 2025.03.28 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document forcibly from the suit land. 13. ordinate Bench of this Court: for the recovery of the amount and the trial Court was not justified to direct the refund as such. the defendant within two months from the date of order along-with interest at the rate of Rs. 1% per month from 18.08.2006 to 28.07.2012 as well as pendente interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per month from the date of filing of the suit till its realization and further, defendant is also restrained from alienating the suit property by way of sale, mortgage, transfer or any other also restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff illegally and forcibly from the suit land...” On 02.09.2021, following order was passed by a Co ordinate Bench of this Court:- “Counsel submits that the conditional decree was passed setting aside the sale deed, subject to deposit of Rs.6,50,000/ by the plaintiff within 2 months from the date of the Award alongwith interest @ 1% per month from 18.08.2006 to 28.07.2012 and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. It is submitted that interest @ 12% for the period of almost 6 years is on the higher side and the same is liable to be modified. Though it has also been argued that there was for the recovery of the amount and the trial Court was not justified to direct the refund as such. This Court is not in agreement with the second limb of the argument, as admittedly the plaintiff himself had admitted that it was a loan transaction and that he had wanted to pay off the money, but the defendant was putting of the matter. Once there is an admission on behalf of the plaintiff as such regarding this aspect, no interference is liable to be made on that account. Accordingly, notice of motion be issued to the respondents for 30.11.2021, only to the limited extent of reducing the interest rate for the period of 6 years prior to the filing of the suit. In the meantime, it is open to the appellant to deposit the principal amount of Rs.6,50,000/ per annum from the date of the agreement till the date of deposit. In case, the amount is deposited within a period of 2 months with the Executing Court, the respondents shall be p. 7 the defendant within two months from the date of order with interest at the rate of Rs. 1% per month from well as pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per month from the date of filing of the suit till its realization and further, defendant is also restrained from alienating the suit property by way of sale, mortgage, transfer or any other manner and the defendant is also restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff illegally and On 02.09.2021, following order was passed by a Co- Counsel submits that the conditional decree was passed setting aside the sale deed, subject to deposit of Rs.6,50,000/- by the plaintiff within 2 months from the date of the Award alongwith interest @ 1% per month from 18.08.2006 to nterest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. It is submitted that interest @ 12% for the period of almost 6 years is on the higher side and the same is liable to be modified. Though it has also been argued that there was no such counter claim for the recovery of the amount and the trial Court was not justified to direct the refund as such. This Court is not in agreement with the second limb of the argument, as admittedly the plaintiff himself had admitted oan transaction and that he had wanted to pay off the money, but the defendant was putting of the matter. Once there is an admission on behalf of the plaintiff as such regarding this aspect, no interference is liable to be made on y, notice of motion be issued to the respondents for 30.11.2021, only to the limited extent of reducing the interest rate for the period of 6 years prior to the filing of the suit. In the meantime, it is open to the appellant to deposit the nt of Rs.6,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the agreement till the date of deposit. In case, the amount is deposited within a period of 2 months with the Executing Court, the respondents shall be 8 SUNENA 2025.03.28 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14. that, as recorded in order dated 15.07.2023 passed by the learned ACJSD/Jgn., the principal amount of released to the respon grievance of the plaintiff in the present lis is in respect of the rate of interest. I find no ground is made out to interfere on this aspect. Ld. Courts below have v period from 18.8.2006 till 28.7.2012 realisation. 15. The appellant is directed to make all payments due to the respondent within a period of this order. 16. 25.03.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: restrained from alienating the pr orders.” It is not denied by learned counsel for the respondent as recorded in order dated 15.07.2023 passed by the learned ACJSD/Jgn., the principal amount of ₹6,50,000/ released to the respondent/ Decree Holder. grievance of the plaintiff in the present lis is in respect of the rate of interest. I find no ground is made out to interfere on this aspect. Ld. Courts below have very fairly awarded interest @ 1 od from 18.8.2006 till 28.7.2012; and @ 6% In view of the above, the The appellant is directed to make all payments due to the respondent a period of two months from date of receipt of certified copy of Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No p. 8 restrained from alienating the property in question, tillfurther It is not denied by learned counsel for the respondent as recorded in order dated 15.07.2023 passed by the learned ₹6,50,000/– has already been dent/ Decree Holder. Thus, the only surviving grievance of the plaintiff in the present lis is in respect of the rate of interest. I find no ground is made out to interfere on this aspect. Ld. ery fairly awarded interest @ 1% per month for the ; and @ 6% per month thereafter, till the present appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to make all payments due to the respondent from date of receipt of certified copy of Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 8 SUNENA 2025.03.28 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document