IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 127 RSA-475-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision.:24.03.2025 Sandeep Chaudhary …..Appellant Vs. Mahesh Kumar and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) This appeal is by defendant No.1 of the suit, against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Suit for declara&on filed by plain&ffs Mahesh Kumar and others (respondent Nos.1 to 8 herein) was partly decreed by holding that they (plain&ffs) were en&tled to recovery of ₹73,92,000/- from defendant No.1 (appellant herein), who was directed to pay the same to the plain&ffs within three months from the date of judgment dated 27.01.2020, failing which interest @ 6% per annum was chargeable. Appeal filed by the appellant-defendant No.1 was dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 31.03.2023. 2. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated inasmuch as appellant-defendant No.1 had paid the sale considera&on to plain&ff No.7 Smt. Purnima. 3. A5er hearing learned counsel and perusing the paper-book, this Court does not find any merit in the conten&on. 4. Plain&ffs are brothers and sisters. They had appointed NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.25 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-475-2024 (O&M) -2- defendant No.1 Sandeep Chaudhary, who is their maternal uncle’s son, as their a9orney vide Ex.P6 and P7. Except plain&ff No.7, all other plain&ffs reside out of the country. Plain&ffs assailed the sale deed dated 25.03.2013 executed by defendant No.1 as a9orney of the plain&ffs, in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6 (respondent Nos.9 to 13 herein) on the ground of fraud. It was also claimed that power of a9orney in favour of defendant No.1 had already been cancelled on 05.09.2013. 5. Defendants contested the claim. As per defendant No.1, he had executed the sale deed as general power of a9orney holder of the plain&ffs, in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6 and had received sale considera&on of ₹73,92,000/-, which he had paid to plain&ff No.7 in the presence of his friend Ajay Kumar. 6. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par&es was taken on record. Courts below recorded concurrent findings to the effect that on the basis of general power of a9orney in his favour executed by the plain&ffs, defendant No.1 had executed the sale deed Ex.P13 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6 and had received an amount of ₹73,92,000/- on their behalf. It was further found that the stand of defendant No.1 to the effect that he had already paid the said amount to plain&ff No.7 Smt. Purnima, was not proved. It was found that except for the tes&mony of DW-4 Sandeep Chaudhary and that of his friend DW5 Ajay Kumar, there was no evidence to support this stand. There was no receipt placed on record. DW-5 Ajay Kumar was found to be working as press reporter with defendant No.1 Sandeep Chaudhary and so, their tes&mony was found to be unreliable to show that without obtaining the receipt, the huge amount of ₹73,92,000/- had been paid to plain&ff Purnima. In her tes&mony, plain&ff Purnima examined as PW-7 had categorically denied to receive any amount from defendant No.1. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.25 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-475-2024 (O&M) -3- 7. Learned counsel for the appellant could not convince this Court about any illegality or perversity in the judgments passed by the Court below. He concedes the fact that there is no receipt showing that amount of ₹73,92,000/- had been paid by appellant-defendant No.1 to plain&ff Purnima. 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below. In the absence of any illegality or perversity, no interference is called for. Dismissed. All the miscellaneous applica&on(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE March 24, 2025 Nee&ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.25 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document