IN THE HI 137 Shingara Singh Tajinder Singh CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, judgments of plaintiff/respo decreed for pr annum from Division, Sirsa said judgment by the defend judgment and dismissed. 2. the plaintiff appellant/defe advanced loan Deed No.3288 E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA ingh Vs. ingh (now deceased) through his LR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. *** PTA, J. The defendant is in se s of the learned Courts below espondent herein, seeking recovery or principal amount of Rs.12 lakh om 28.04.2011 by the learned Ad irsa vide judgment and decree da ent, two appeals were filed – one endants before the learned Additio and decree dated 03.08.2024, both Brief facts of the case as s tiff and the defendant were kn defendant was in need of mon loan of Rs.1,20,000/- to the defenda 3288 dated 26.05.2006 (Ex.P1) on w p. 1 D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2399-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.02.2025 ...Appellant(s) is LRs ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA te second appeal against the low whereby the suit of the very of Rs.49,56,000/- was partly kh along with interest @ 6% per d Additional Civil Judge, Senior dated 22.11.2022. Against the one by the plaintiff and another itional District Judge, Sirsa. Vide both the said appeals have been as set out in the plaint are that known to each other. The money. As such, the plaintiff endant vide registered Mortgage on which the defendant agreed 8 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document to pay interes advanced an a Deed No.7572 Rs.2 lakh on s the defendan defendant as R of Rs.4 lakh w dated 22.01.2 extended to th (Ex.P9). Thus, defendant wa terms and co 27.04.2011. H defendant fai interest due Rs.37,56,000/ through regist the defendant present suit principal amo registered M mortgaged lan along with in erest at the rate of 2% per mens an additional amount of Rs.80,000 572 dated 21.11.2006 (Ex.P3) to th on same terms and conditions was dant. Thus, making the total am as Rs.4 lakh. The defendant again d h which was given by the plaintiff v .01.2010 (Ex.P7). Thereafter, anot to the defendant vide Mortgage De hus, as on 27.04.2011, the princip was Rs.12 lakh. The defendant p d conditions of the Mortgage D . However, thereafter, despite de failed to make payment of inte due from 28.04.2011 till 10.08 00/-. As such, the plaintiff served le egistered post to the defendant th dant failed to respond to the same it on 11.8.2017 seeking recovery o mount + Rs.37,56,000/- as interest Mortgage Deed No.887 dated d land measuring 19 kanal 0 marla h interest @ 2% per mensem on p. 2 ensem. Thereafter, the plaintiff ,000/- vide registered Mortgage to the defendant. A third loan of was advanced by the plaintiff to l amount payable against the ain demanded an additional loan tiff vide Mortgage Deed No.7227 nother sum of Rs.4 lakh was Deed No.887 dated 27.04.2011 incipal amount due against the nt paid the interest as per the e Deed to the plaintiff up to e demand by the plaintiff, the interest. The total amount of 0.08.2018 was stated to be ed legal notice dated 18.07.2017 t through his counsel. However, ame. As such, plaintiff filed the ry of Rs.49,56,000/- (Rs.12 lakh erest thereupon) on the basis of ted 27.04.2011 in respect of arla as described in the plaint, on the basis of 5 registered 8 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Mortgage Dee No.1969 dated 27.04.2011. 3. filed written s and has got averred that t guise of runn fictitious docu getting signat security for th averred by th Ashutosh Pal S in which they papers and s commission a Singh Firangi papers. The d plaintiff and p that the defen that the Mortg was further a Rs.1,20,000/- Deeds No.3288 dated 26.05.2006, ated 18.06.2007, No.7227 dated 22 Upon notice, the defenda en statement and alleging that the ot no licence under the Money at the plaintiff had trapped many f unning commission agency busine ocuments by way of security from t gnatures on blank papers and sta r the dealings of the commission a y the defendant that the plainti Pal Singh Firangi s/o Komal Singh w hey were getting signatures of unsu nd stamp papers in the guise o n agency. As such, the plaintiff al ngi was duping farmers of their la he defendant being simpleton farm nd plaintiff has misused the allege efendant owed any money to the ortgage Deeds are the result of fra er averred that the plaintiff had - to the defendant at the time of p. 3 006, No.7572 dated 21.11.2006, d 22.01.2010 and No.887 dated endant put in appearance and the plaintiff is a money lender ey Lending Act. It was further ny farmers in his clutches in the siness. The plaintiff was getting om the farmers. The plaintiff was stamp papers in the guise of on agency of the plaintiff. It was aintiff in connivance with one gh was running finance business unsuspecting farmers over blank se of security for dealings of ff along with said Ashutosh Pal ir lands by misusing such blank farmer had been believing the leged documents. It was denied the plaintiff and it was alleged f fraud and misrepresentation. It had advanced only a sum of e of start of business in the year 8 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2006 and the security of the the defendant never agreed been misused lakh etc. were never account defendant on the sale price demanded his them became plaintiff on 11 dismissal of th 4. of pleadings o trial Court vide the land was mortgaged by the f the said amount. On the promisso dant had signed the said mortgag ed to pay interest upon the same. sed by the plaintiff. The other adv ere denied by the defendant. It w ounted for the sale of the crops of on the good faith had kept on selli rice only from the plaintiff. In the ye his account from the plaintiff; w ame strained leading to the filing n 11.08.2017. With these avermen of the suit. Replication was not filed b gs of the parties, following issues vide order dated 08.03.2018:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is Rs.49,56,000/- alongwith interest plaint? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no loc suit? OPD 3. Whether suit of the plaintiff present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopp his own act and conduct? OPD 5. Relief.” p. 4 the defendant just by way of issory assurances of the plaintiff, tgage for Rs.1,20,000/- but had e. As such, Mortgage Deed has advances of Rs.2 lakh and Rs.4 It was alleged that the plaintiff s of the defendant; whereas the selling his crop and used to take e year 2016, the defendant had f; whereafter relations between iling of the present suit by the ents, the defendant prayed for led by the plaintiff. On the basis ues were framed by the learned is entitled for recovery of erest on the grounds taken in the o locus-standi to file the present ntiff is not maintainable in the topped to file the present suit by SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5. evidence addu the suit of the Rs.12 lakh alon 6. challenged by District Judge, decree dated learned First A 7. appellant/defe plaintiff is a co name and sty dupes and fra were duly brou advanced only purpose and against the d defendant wa any other mo the defendant The loan was On the basis of pleading adduced by the parties, the learne the plaintiff directing the defendan along with interest @ 6% per annum The said judgment and de by the plaintiff as also the defend dge, Sirsa by way of two separate ted 03.08.2024, both the said app rst Appellate Court. Hence, the pres Learned counsel for the d defendant is a simpleton farmer a commission agent running a comm style of M/s Tajinder Trading Com fraudulently commits fraud upon brought on record by the defendan only a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to th nd it was promised that the mor e defendant. The mortgage was was selling crop to the plaintiff. T money to the defendant. No amou dant. There is no receipt against pay was given only in the year 2006 an p. 5 dings and oral & documentary arned trial Court partly decreed dant to pay the principal sum of nnum from 28.04.2011. d decree dated 22.11.2022 was fendant before the ld. Additional ate appeals. Vide judgment and appeals were dismissed by the present second appeal. he defendant submits that the mer. On the other hand, the ommission agent firm under the Company. The plaintiff regularly on simple farmers. The J Forms dant. Moreover, the plaintiff had o the defendant for agriculture mortgage will not be enforced as just a security because the iff. The plaintiff never advanced mount of Rs.4 lakh was paid to payment of the alleged amount. 6 and the land was mortgaged. 8 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document The subseque and 27.04.201 impugned judg 8. 9. perused the 10. Mortgage Dee the defendant plaintiff. It has that only a s defendant aga money was ev the appellant record to the plaintiff as PW of PW1-Arjan dated 26.05.2 (Ex.P1, Ex.P3, defendant in scribing the d whereafter, af Deeds to be t quent Mortgages dated 21.11.20 .2011 are a result of fraud. It is judgments and decrees be set aside No other argument is made I have heard learned cou case file in great detail. It is the contention of the d Deeds were procured by the plaint dant on blank papers which were s t has also been submitted by learne a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was giv against the mortgage of land; an s ever given to the defendant. How lant/defendant are belied by the the contrary. Perusal of record o s PW2 and vide his sworn affidavit ( rjan Dev, Deed Writer, had proved 05.2006, 21.11.2006, 18.06.2007, .P3, Ex.P5, Ex.P7 and Ex.P9) were sc in favour of the plaintiff. PW1 sp e deeds, he read the contents of t r, after understanding and admitti be true, the parties appended thei p. 6 1.2006, 18.06.2007, 22.01.2010 t is accordingly prayed that the side. ade on behalf of the appellant. counsel for the appellant and he defendant that the impugned laintiff by obtaining signatures of re subsequently misused by the arned counsel for the defendant given by the plaintiff to the ; and that no other amount of However, the said contentions of the overwhelming evidence on rd of the case shows that the vit (Ex.PW2/A); as also evidence oved that the Mortgage Deeds 07, 22.01.2010 and 27.04.2011 re scribed at the instance of the 1 specifically deposed that after of the same over to the parties itting the contents of the said their respective signatures over 8 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the Deeds in were also ma Ex.P4, Ex.P6, E by the eviden above. PW3 mortgage amo which amoun From the abo were executed that the argum result of fraud Deeds duly e photographs o Ex.P5, Ex.P7 a cross-examina Ex.P7 and Ex.P by Arjan Dev said Deeds we he appended before the Su over to him an on the same in the presence of witnesses. Nec made by PW1 in his register as ev P6, Ex.P8 and Ex.P10). The Deeds in idence of PW3-Ashutosh Pal Sing 3 further deposed that the de amount from the plaintiff in his pre ount was received by the defenda above facts and findings, it is clea uted by the defendant in favour of rgument of the defendant that the raud, is unfounded. Moreover, the ly endorsed by the Sub-Registrar hs of both the parties were brough P7 and Ex.P9. Even the defendant ination that the said Mortgage Ex.P9) bear his signatures, and all Dev. The defendant has further ad s were read over to him which were ded his signatures to the said Deed Sub-Registrar, the contents of the m and after admitting the contents, me. Thus, on the basis of the abov p. 7 Necessary entries in this regard as evident from excerpts (Ex.P2, ds in question were also proved Singh Firangi who deposed as defendant had received the presence; except on 27.04.2011 ndant before the Sub-Registrar. clear that the Mortgage Deeds r of the plaintiff. It is also clear the said Mortgage deeds were a the original registered Mortgage strar, along with computerised ought on record as Ex.P1, Ex.P3, ant as DW1 has admitted in his ge Deeds (Ex.P1, Ex.P3, Ex.P5, all the said Deeds were scribed r admitted that contents of the ere admitted by him whereafter eed. It was admitted that even the mortgage deeds were read nts, he appended his signatures above said voluminous oral and 8 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document documentary Deed was exec 11. pains to imp agent/money been made t indicates that unsubstantiate way establish defendant fail may also be no the plaintiff ha bald assertion examining any record that th since school ti 12. made out to below. The pre 13. 05.02.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo ary evidence, it was established th executed for a separate loan transac Learned counsel for the d impress upon this Court that the ey lender. To substantiate the said de to the J Forms (Ex.D2 to Ex. that the said contention of the tiated as, mere placing on record lish that the same were issued b failed to establish that the plainti e noted that it has been argued on iff had similarly duped many farmer tions in this regard have been mad any farmer to support the said con at the plaintiff and the defendant ol time. Accordingly, in view of the to interfere in the well-reasoned present appeal stands dismissed. Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No p. 8 d that each and every Mortgage nsaction. he defendant has been at great the plaintiff is a commission said argument reference has also Ex.D10). However, the record the defendant also remained ord of the J Forms would in no d by the plaintiff. As such, the aintiff is a commission agent. It on behalf of the defendant that rmers. However, admittedly only made by the defendant without contention. It has also come on ant were known to each other f the above, I find no ground is ed judgments of the ld. Courts ed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 8 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document