RSA-5745 116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Baljinder Singh Bhupinder Singh and others CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) decrees dated below; whereby the suit for Rs.3,00,000/ 12% per annum No.1/ plaintiff from the appellant/ defendant No.4 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of execution of the sale deed till the date of institution of 5745-2016 (O&M) [1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RSA-5745 Reserved on: Date of Pronouncement Baljinder Singh Versus Bhupinder Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr.A.K. Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.4 is in appeal decrees dated 28.02.2013 and 01.08.2016 below; whereby the suit for recovery of Rs.13,50,000/ Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation besides claim towards 12% per annum came to be partly decreed in favour of No.1/ plaintiff while holding him entitled for recovery of Rs.7,50,000/ from the appellant/ defendant No.4 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of execution of the sale deed till the date of institution of 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 5745-2016 (O&M) Reserved on:- 04.09.2025 Pronouncement: 10.09.2025 …….Appellant Versus .….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advocate Defendant No.4 is in appeal against the judgments and 28.02.2013 and 01.08.2016 passed by the Courts recovery of Rs.13,50,000/- including besides claim towards interest @ partly decreed in favour of respondent entitled for recovery of Rs.7,50,000/ from the appellant/ defendant No.4 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of execution of the sale deed till the date of institution of .2025 judgments and passed by the Courts including interest @ respondent entitled for recovery of Rs.7,50,000/- from the appellant/ defendant No.4 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of execution of the sale deed till the date of institution of SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.10 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5745 suit and further actual realization of amount. 2. filed a suit on 13.12.2002/21.12.2002, defendant No.1 through defendants No.2 & 3 agreed to sell 221.81 sq yards area out of Khasra Number 713 min, situated within the revenue estate of Tung Bala Urban, Abadi Basant Avenue, Amritsar on which Kothi municipal respondent No.1 and defendant No.4 in equal shares sale consideration of Rs.33,00,000/ of execution of agreement to sell, plaintiff and defendant No.4 advanced Rs.5,00,000/ be executed on or before 25.03.2003 three cheques bearing Nos.759253, 759254 and 759255 cheque bearing No.759251 dated lakhs each of State Bank of India to No.3, i.e. general encashed by them through their respective banks. Plaintiff ready and willing to get the sale deed executed, balance sale consideration of his part to defendant No.4, to deceive the plaintiff, joined hands with defendants No.1 to 3 and executed the sale deed of the whole area in his name while mentioning the sale consideration price as Rs.15,74,000/ 5745-2016 (O&M) [2 suit and further pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annu actual realization of amount. Brief facts of the case are that filed a suit for recovery against the defendants on 13.12.2002/21.12.2002, defendant No.1 through defendants No.2 & 3 agreed to sell 221.81 sq yards area out of Khasra Number 713 min, situated within the revenue estate of Tung Bala Urban, Abadi Basant Avenue, Amritsar on which Kothi municipal No.472 was already existing, respondent No.1 and defendant No.4 in equal shares sale consideration of Rs.33,00,000/-. It was pleaded that at the time of execution of agreement to sell, plaintiff and defendant No.4 advanced Rs.5,00,000/- in equal proportio be executed on or before 25.03.2003 three cheques bearing Nos.759253, 759254 and 759255 cheque bearing No.759251 dated 17.03.2003 amounting to Rs.2 lakhs each of State Bank of India to i.e. general attorneys of defendant No.1 vendor encashed by them through their respective banks. Plaintiff ready and willing to get the sale deed executed, balance sale consideration of his part to defendant No.4, to deceive the plaintiff, joined hands with defendants No.1 to 3 and executed the sale deed of the whole area in his name while mentioning the sale consideration price as Rs.15,74,000/ 2] and future interest @ 6% per annum Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/ plaintiff against the defendants-appellant alleging that on 13.12.2002/21.12.2002, defendant No.1 through his attorneys defendants No.2 & 3 agreed to sell 221.81 sq yards area out of Khasra Number 713 min, situated within the revenue estate of Tung Bala Urban, Abadi Basant Avenue, Amritsar on which Kothi bearing existing, in favour of plaintiff/ respondent No.1 and defendant No.4 in equal shares against total . It was pleaded that at the time of execution of agreement to sell, plaintiff and defendant No.4 in equal proportion and the sale deed was to be executed on or before 25.03.2003. Further, plaintiff handed over three cheques bearing Nos.759253, 759254 and 759255 and one 17.03.2003 amounting to Rs.2 defendant No.2 and defendant of defendant No.1 vendor, which were encashed by them through their respective banks. Plaintiff been ready and willing to get the sale deed executed, handed over the balance sale consideration of his part to defendant No.4, who in order to deceive the plaintiff, joined hands with defendants No.1 to 3 and executed the sale deed of the whole area in his name while mentioning the sale consideration price as Rs.15,74,000/-. Hence m till plaintiff alleging that eys defendants No.2 & 3 agreed to sell 221.81 sq yards area out of Khasra Number 713 min, situated within the revenue estate of Tung bearing of plaintiff/ against total . It was pleaded that at the time of execution of agreement to sell, plaintiff and defendant No.4 n and the sale deed was to plaintiff handed over and one 17.03.2003 amounting to Rs.2 ndant No.2 and defendant , which were been the in order to deceive the plaintiff, joined hands with defendants No.1 to 3 and executed the sale deed of the whole area in his name while Hence SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.10 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5745 the suit filed for refund of the amount paid along with interest and compensation as well. 3. as defendant No.3 failed to put in appearance and as such they were proceeded against respectively. statement alleging therein that suit was the plaintiff was having no cause of action to file the same. written statement that defendant No.1 through his well as defendant No.4 his inability to get the same executed as he wanted to invest the money somewhere else and therefore, requested the defendant No.1 to refund the amount. It is only thereafter, on account of mutual agreement, a sum of Rs.7.50 lakhs was paid by father of defendant No.4/appellant to the plaintiff on 28.07.2023 and the remaining amount of Rs.4 lakhs No.4/appellant through a post dated 29.12.2003 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Amritsar such, no amount was due and No.1 was liable to be dismissed with costs 5745-2016 (O&M) [3 the suit filed for refund of the amount paid along with interest and compensation as well. Upon notice, despite service, defendants No.1 defendant No.3 failed to put in appearance and as such they were proceeded against ex parte on 04.05.2006 and 09.09.2005, respectively. However, defendant No.4 appeared and filed written statement alleging therein that the present suit was not maintainable; was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct as he no cause of action to file the same. written statement that though the agreement to sell was executed by defendant No.1 through his attorneys defendant No.4 in equal proportion his inability to get the same executed as he wanted to invest the money somewhere else and therefore, requested the defendant No.1 to refund the amount. It is only thereafter, on account of mutual agreement, a sum of Rs.7.50 lakhs was paid by father of defendant No.4/appellant to the plaintiff on 28.07.2023 and the remaining amount of Rs.4 lakhs No.4/appellant through a post-dated cheque bearing No.847884 dated 29.12.2003 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Amritsar no amount was due and the suit filed by plaintiff was liable to be dismissed with costs 3] the suit filed for refund of the amount paid along with interest and Upon notice, despite service, defendants No.1 & 2 as well defendant No.3 failed to put in appearance and as such they were on 04.05.2006 and 09.09.2005, However, defendant No.4 appeared and filed written the present suit was not maintainable; joinder of necessary parties and estopped by his own act and conduct as he was no cause of action to file the same. It was admitted in the though the agreement to sell was executed by attorneys jointly in favour of plaintiff in equal proportion; but later plaintiff showed his inability to get the same executed as he wanted to invest the money somewhere else and therefore, requested the attorneys defendant No.1 to refund the amount. It is only thereafter, on account of mutual agreement, a sum of Rs.7.50 lakhs was paid by father of defendant No.4/appellant to the plaintiff on 28.07.2023 and the remaining amount of Rs.4 lakhs was paid by defenda dated cheque bearing No.847884 dated 29.12.2003 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Amritsar and as the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent was liable to be dismissed with costs. the suit filed for refund of the amount paid along with interest and as well defendant No.3 failed to put in appearance and as such they were on 04.05.2006 and 09.09.2005, However, defendant No.4 appeared and filed written the present suit was not maintainable; and was It was admitted in the though the agreement to sell was executed by in favour of plaintiff as later plaintiff showed his inability to get the same executed as he wanted to invest the attorneys of defendant No.1 to refund the amount. It is only thereafter, on account of mutual agreement, a sum of Rs.7.50 lakhs was paid by father of defendant No.4/appellant to the plaintiff on 28.07.2023 and the by defendant dated cheque bearing No.847884 and as respondent SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.10 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5745 4. by defendant No.4 in his contents of the plaint were reiterated cheque issued by defendant No.4 was dishonoured and a complaint in this regard under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had to be filed 5. the following issues: 6. learned trial Court No.1/ plaintiff and he was held entitled for recovery of sum of Rs.7,50,000/ @ 9% p.a. from the date of execution 5745-2016 (O&M) [4 To this, plaintiff filed replication wherein the stand taken defendant No.4 in his written statement was contents of the plaint were reiterated cheque issued by defendant No.4 was dishonoured and a complaint s regard under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had to be filed. Upon pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff Rs.13,50,000/- along with 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the compensation of Rs.3 lacs? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his conduct from filing the suit? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no action to file the present suit? OPD cause of 7. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court? OPD Relief.” After appreciation of evidence led by learned trial Court partly decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1/ plaintiff and he was held entitled for recovery of sum of Rs.7,50,000/- from the appellant/ defendant No.4 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of execution 4] ntiff filed replication wherein the stand taken written statement was controverted and the besides pleading that even the cheque issued by defendant No.4 was dishonoured and a complaint s regard under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Upon pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of along with interest? OPP Whether plaintiff is entitled to the compensation of Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties? OPD Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD Whether the plaintiff has no action to file the present Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts After appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the partly decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1/ plaintiff and he was held entitled for recovery of sum of from the appellant/ defendant No.4 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of execution of the sale deed till the date of ntiff filed replication wherein the stand taken and the besides pleading that even the cheque issued by defendant No.4 was dishonoured and a complaint s regard under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Upon pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed is entitled to recovery of Whether plaintiff is entitled to the compensation of Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder and non joinder own act and Whether the plaintiff has no action to file the present Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts the parties, the partly decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1/ plaintiff and he was held entitled for recovery of sum of from the appellant/ defendant No.4 along with interest of the sale deed till the date of SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.10 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5745 institution of suit and further per annum Court held that Rs.4 lakhs was paid to the plaintiff by defendant No.4. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant/ appeal, however, the same was dismissed by the Court of learned District Judge, Importantly, against the rejection separate appeal was filed by plaintiff, however, the same dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide same judgment and decree. 7. passed by the Courts below, le No.4 submits that perform his part of the contract, thus, the suit filed by him for recovery of Rs.13,50,000/ also pointed out that the to the plaintiff and the same was duly proved on record from the deposition of defendant No.4 and his father having appeared as DW1 and DW4, respectively. 8. plaintiff submit the plaintiff while from defendant No. 4 alongwith interest and the present appeal is thus liable to be dismissed. 5745-2016 (O&M) [5 institution of suit and further pendente lite annum till actual realization of amount. Court held that Rs.4 lakhs was paid to the plaintiff by defendant No.4. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant/ defendant No.4 preferred appeal, however, the same was dismissed by the Court of learned District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated Importantly, against the rejection o separate appeal was filed by plaintiff, however, the same dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide same judgment and decree. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for app No.4 submits that since plaintiff/ respondent No.1 himself resiled to perform his part of the contract, thus, the suit filed by him for recovery of Rs.13,50,000/- deserved to be dismissed. also pointed out that the appellant had already paid the amount due to the plaintiff and the same was duly proved on record from the deposition of defendant No.4 and his father having appeared as DW1 and DW4, respectively. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No plaintiff submits that the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of plaintiff while holding him entitled to the from defendant No. 4 alongwith interest and the present appeal is thus liable to be dismissed. 5] pendente lite and future interest @ 6% till actual realization of amount. However, the learned trial Court held that Rs.4 lakhs was paid to the plaintiff by defendant No.4. defendant No.4 preferred first appeal, however, the same was dismissed by the Court of learned vide judgment and decree dated 01.08.2016 of his claim qua Rs.4 lakhs, separate appeal was filed by plaintiff, however, the same was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide same judgment Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees arned counsel for appellant/defendant since plaintiff/ respondent No.1 himself resiled to perform his part of the contract, thus, the suit filed by him for recovery to be dismissed. In the alternate, it was appellant had already paid the amount due to the plaintiff and the same was duly proved on record from the deposition of defendant No.4 and his father having appeared as DW1 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of entitled to the recovery of Rs.7,50,000/ from defendant No. 4 alongwith interest and the present appeal is and future interest @ 6% However, the learned trial Court held that Rs.4 lakhs was paid to the plaintiff by defendant No.4. first appeal, however, the same was dismissed by the Court of learned 01.08.2016. khs, was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide same judgment Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees ellant/defendant since plaintiff/ respondent No.1 himself resiled to perform his part of the contract, thus, the suit filed by him for recovery In the alternate, it was appellant had already paid the amount due to the plaintiff and the same was duly proved on record from the deposition of defendant No.4 and his father having appeared as DW1 . 1- that the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of 7,50,000/- from defendant No. 4 alongwith interest and the present appeal is SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.10 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5745 9. through the paper submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant 10. deed was executed in f land, and the factum of having received part consideration from plaintiff was admitted amount contributed by the plaintiff shifted upon him. Except the oral deposition of defendant No.4 himself as DW1 and that of his father as DW4, no documentary evidence so as to establish the source of the money paid to the plaintiff was of the amount paid to the plaintiff was produced in evidence. In such circumstances, available on record that defendan lakhs to the plaintiff after getting the sale deed (Ex.P11) misinterpretation of the statement Dalbir Singh 11. substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below present appeal being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed. 5745-2016 (O&M) [6 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book / records, I find no substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant In the considered opinion of this Court, o deed was executed in favour of defendant No.4 regarding the entire and the factum of having received part consideration from plaintiff was admitted then burden to prove the amount contributed by the plaintiff shifted upon him. Except the oral deposition of defendant No.4 himself as DW1 and that of his father as DW4, no documentary evidence so as to establish the source of the money paid to the plaintiff was produced on record. Even no receipt of the amount paid to the plaintiff was produced in evidence. In such circumstances, the concurrent findings of fact based upon evidence available on record was recorded by the Courts below while holding that defendant No.4 failed to prove the lakhs to the plaintiff after getting the sale deed (Ex.P11) executed in his absence, thus, misinterpretation of the statements of defendant No.4 and his father Dalbir Singh; no interference is called for on In view of the above, no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below present appeal being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed. 6] ng heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book / records, I find no substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant-defendant No. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the sale avour of defendant No.4 regarding the entire and the factum of having received part consideration from to prove the factum of return of the amount contributed by the plaintiff shifted upon him. Except the oral deposition of defendant No.4 himself as DW1 and that of his father as DW4, no documentary evidence so as to establish the source of the produced on record. Even no receipt of the amount paid to the plaintiff was produced in evidence. In such the concurrent findings of fact based upon evidence by the Courts below while holding t No.4 failed to prove the cash payment of Rs.7.50 lakhs to the plaintiff after getting the sale deed dated 01.01.2004 thus, there being no misreading or of defendant No.4 and his father ed for on such finding of fact. no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal; as there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, the present appeal being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed. ng heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book / records, I find no substance in the nce the sale avour of defendant No.4 regarding the entire and the factum of having received part consideration from of return of the amount contributed by the plaintiff shifted upon him. Except the oral deposition of defendant No.4 himself as DW1 and that of his father as DW4, no documentary evidence so as to establish the source of the produced on record. Even no receipt of the amount paid to the plaintiff was produced in evidence. In such the concurrent findings of fact based upon evidence by the Courts below while holding payment of Rs.7.50 dated 01.01.2004 misreading or of defendant No.4 and his father- no question of law, much less as there with , the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.10 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5745 12. disposed of. 10.09.2025 sanjay 5745-2016 (O&M) [7 Pending misc. application(s), if an disposed of. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? 7] Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No y, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.10 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document