RSA-1509- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 116 1. Parsan Singh Balbir Singh 2. Lakhbir Singh Balbir Singh 3. Darshan Singh Balbir Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MS. Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. 1. judgments and decrees -2022 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1509-2022 Parsan Singh Versus Balbir Singh RSA-374-2020 (O&M) Lakhbir Singh Versus Balbir Singh RSA-1133-2020 (O&M) Darshan Singh Versus Balbir Singh Date of Decision: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate for the appellant(s) (in all cases). NIDHI GUPTA, J. RSA-1509-2022 (Parsan Singh The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by both the Court IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH .…Appellant ....Respondent .…Appellant ....Respondent 2020 (O&M) .…Appellant ....Respondent Date of Decision: 06.05.2025 JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate for the appellant(s) (in all cases). Parsan Singh vs. Balbir Singh) The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent rendered by both the Courts below, whereby the The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent the RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1509- Suit for Recovery of filed by the appellant, has been 2. CM-986-C Prayer Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the accompanying appeal (RSA by an affidavit, the same accompanying appeal is condoned. RSA-374-2020 judgments and decrees rendered by both the Court below, whereby Suit for Recovery of dismissed. 3. CM-3572-C Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of accompanying appeal by an affidavit, the same is accompanying appeal is condoned. -2022 (O&M) -2- Suit for Recovery of ₹5,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum filed by the appellant, has been dismissed. RSA-374-2020 (O&M) (Lakhbir Singh C-2020 in RSA-374-2020 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the accompanying appeal (RSA-374-2020). Heard. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed; and delay of accompanying appeal is condoned. 2020 The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by both the Court below, whereby Suit for Recovery of ₹10,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum RSA-1133-2020 (O&M) (Darshan Singh C-2020 in RSA-1133-2020 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of accompanying appeal (RSA-1133-2020). Heard. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed; and delay of accompanying appeal is condoned. along with interest @ 12% per annum (Lakhbir Singh vs. Balbir Singh) in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the For the reasons stated in the application which is supported and delay of 18 days in filing the The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by both the Court below, whereby Suit with interest @ 12% per annum, was Darshan Singh vs. Balbir Singh) Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the For the reasons stated in the application which is supported and delay of 16 days in filing the in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the For the reasons stated in the application which is supported days in filing the The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by both the Court below, whereby Suit was Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the days in filing the For the reasons stated in the application which is supported days in filing the RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1509- RSA-1133- concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by both the Court below, whereby Suit for Recovery of annum was dismissed. RSA Nos. 1509 1. of by this common order second appeals are extracted from 2. before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is being referred to as plaintiff’, whereas the respondent as 3. a suit for recovery was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the defendant had requested the plaintiff to advance a friendly loan of to return the same with interest @ 12% per annum 02 years have elapsed, the defendant did not despite repeated requests by the plaintiff notice dated refused to take delivery of present suit on 4. Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. The appeal filed by the -2022 (O&M) -3- -2020 The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by both the Court below, whereby Suit for Recovery of ₹10,00,000/- annum was dismissed. RSA Nos. 1509-2022; RSA No.374-2020; and All the aforementioned 03 second appeals are being disposed of by this common order as the facts, issues and parties involved in second appeals are identical. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from RSA-1509-2022 titled as ‘Parsan Singh The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is being referred to as whereas the respondent as ‘the defendan Brief facts of the case are that the recovery of ₹5,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the defendant had requested the plaintiff to advance a friendly loan of ₹5,00,000/ to return the same with interest @ 12% per annum 02 years have elapsed, the defendant did not despite repeated requests by the plaintiff. The plaintiff first issued a legal notice dated 27.12.2012 to the defendant. However, the defendant had refused to take delivery of the notice. As such, the plaintiff had filed the present suit on 23.01.2013. Vide judgment and decree dated Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. The appeal filed by the appellant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by both the Court below, - along with interest @ 12% per 2020; and RSA No.1133-2020: the aforementioned 03 second appeals are being disposed as the facts, issues and parties involved in all the For the sake of convenience, facts are being Parsan Singh vs. Balbir Singh’. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is being referred to as ‘the defendant’. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff had filed along with interest @ 12% per annum. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the defendant had requested the 5,00,000/-. Defendant had agreed to return the same with interest @ 12% per annum. However, more that 02 years have elapsed, the defendant did not repay the said amount . The plaintiff first issued a legal to the defendant. However, the defendant had As such, the plaintiff had filed the Vide judgment and decree dated 22.01.2016, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. The appeal filed by the appellant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by both the Court below, along with interest @ 12% per the aforementioned 03 second appeals are being disposed For the sake of convenience, facts are being The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status the filed along with interest @ 12% per annum. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the defendant had requested the agreed r, more that . The plaintiff first issued a legal to the defendant. However, the defendant had As such, the plaintiff had filed the 22.01.2016, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. The appeal filed by the RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1509- plaintiff against the said judgment dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.01.2020 by the l Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, thereby upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal. 5. appellant that amount borrowed by the def defendant as earnest money against the Sale Deed Dated submitted that the plaintiff had duly proved that these are transactions The learned Courts below have ignored and misread evidence whereby the plaintiff has clearly proved 02 separate transactions. It is contended that earnest money below did not conside Kumar from which it is clear that Sell dated there is manifest error in the judgments and decrees of both below. It is accordingly prayed that all the aforementioned appeals be allowed and the set aside. 6. appellant(s). -2022 (O&M) -4- plaintiff against the said judgment and decree dated 22.01.2016, was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.01.2020 by the l Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, thereby upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the present second It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts below have wrongly and illegally mixed the borrowed by the defendant and the amount received by the defendant as earnest money against the Sale Deed Dated submitted that the plaintiff had duly proved that these are transactions which were not interlinked with each other in any manner. The learned Courts below have ignored and misread evidence whereby the plaintiff has clearly proved 02 separate transactions. It is contended that the present transactions had no concern with the earnest money qua sale deed dated 12.07.2010. In this regard, the Courts below did not consider the affidavit dated 24.12.2012 ( from which it is clear that the amount ell dated 12.07.2010 was in cash and was not through the Bank. there is manifest error in the judgments and decrees of both t is accordingly prayed that all the aforementioned appeals be allowed and the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below may No other argument has been rai appellant(s). and decree dated 22.01.2016, was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.01.2020 by the ld. Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, thereby upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the present second submitted by learned counsel for the both the Courts below have wrongly and illegally mixed the endant and the amount received by the defendant as earnest money against the Sale Deed Dated 12.07.2010. It is submitted that the plaintiff had duly proved that these are two separate which were not interlinked with each other in any manner. The learned Courts below have ignored and misread the plaintiff’s evidence whereby the plaintiff has clearly proved 02 separate transactions. the present transactions had no concern with the qua sale deed dated 12.07.2010. In this regard, the Courts 24.12.2012 (Ex. P-7) of Krishan the amount paid towards Agreement to and was not through the Bank. Thus, there is manifest error in the judgments and decrees of both the Courts t is accordingly prayed that all the aforementioned appeals be of both the Courts below may be has been raised by learned counsel for the and decree dated 22.01.2016, was also Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, thereby upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the present second submitted by learned counsel for the both the Courts below have wrongly and illegally mixed the endant and the amount received by the . It is separate which were not interlinked with each other in any manner. the plaintiff’s evidence whereby the plaintiff has clearly proved 02 separate transactions. the present transactions had no concern with the qua sale deed dated 12.07.2010. In this regard, the Courts of Krishan greement to Thus, the Courts t is accordingly prayed that all the aforementioned appeals be be ed by learned counsel for the RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1509- 7. perused the case file in great detail. 8. counsel for the appellant account of the plaintiff to the account of the defendant is not disputed. However, it is the clear stand of the defendant in the written statement which is supported by the cogent evidence led by amount of of earnest money given in pursuance to the Agreement to Sell dated 12.07.2010 and brother of the plaintiff, namely, Darshan Singh (appellant in RSA 1133-2020) Darshan Singh had agreed i.e. 47 Marlas situated in the Revenue Estate of village Sunderpur, the defendant sale amount, was given in cash transactions by appellant appellant-Lakhbir Singh (in RSA appellant-Darshan Singh (in RSA 9. Agreement to Sel evidence of DW District Court, Kurukshetra. In fact, the plaintiff himself did not -2022 (O&M) -5- I have heard learned counsel for the appellant perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. The transfer of account of the plaintiff to the account of the defendant is not disputed. However, it is the clear stand of the defendant in the written statement which is supported by the cogent evidence led by amount of ₹5,00,000/- was transferred by the plaintiff as part payment of earnest money given in pursuance to the Agreement to Sell dated 12.07.2010 Mark-DA/Ex.D1, executed between defendant and brother of the plaintiff, namely, Darshan Singh (appellant in RSA 2020). As per the said Agreement to Sell dated Darshan Singh had agreed to purchase land measuring i.e. 47 Marlas situated in the Revenue Estate of village Sunderpur, the defendant for a total sale consideration of sale amount,₹50,00,000/- was paid as earnest money i.e. was given in cash; and transfer of ₹25,00,000/ transactions by the appellants in the present appeals i.e. (i) appellant-Parsan Singh (in RSA-1509 Lakhbir Singh (in RSA-374-2020); and Darshan Singh (in RSA-1133-2020) The defendant had duly proved Agreement to Sell dated 12.07.2010 as Ex. D evidence of DW-2 Randhir Singh Saini, Advocate Notary Public, District Court, Kurukshetra. In fact, the plaintiff himself did not rd learned counsel for the appellant(s) and merit in the submissions advanced by learned transfer of ₹5,00,000/- from the account of the plaintiff to the account of the defendant is not disputed. However, it is the clear stand of the defendant in the written statement which is supported by the cogent evidence led by him, that the said ferred by the plaintiff as part payment of earnest money given in pursuance to the Agreement to Sell dated executed between defendant-Balbir Singh and brother of the plaintiff, namely, Darshan Singh (appellant in RSA- Agreement to Sell dated 12.07.2010, to purchase land measuring 1422 Sq. Yards i.e. 47 Marlas situated in the Revenue Estate of village Sunderpur, from for a total sale consideration of ₹2,44,00,000/-. Out of this was paid as earnest money i.e. ₹25,00,000/- 25,00,000/- was made through bank by the appellants in the present appeals i.e. (i) ₹5,00,000/- 1509-2022); ₹10,00,000/- by 2020); and ₹10,00,000/- by 2020). The defendant had duly proved on record the photocopy of 12.07.2010 as Ex. D-1/Mark DA from the 2 Randhir Singh Saini, Advocate Notary Public, District Court, Kurukshetra. In fact, the plaintiff himself did not dispute RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1509- the execution of Agreement to Sell dated 12.07.2010 (Ex.D DA).The fact the account of the defendant towards payment of earnest money and not by way of loan is also born executed between the plaintiff and the defendant for the alleged loan of ₹5,00,000/- was given However, the plaintiff has failed to e 10. forth by the plaintiffs that the aforesaid amount of defendant on 12.07.20 notice dated 27.12.20 advanced for a period of 02 years. Moreover, father of the plaintiff, namely, Lakhbir Singh on oath admitting son Darshan Singh ₹11,00,000/ of earnest money. Even the execution of Agreement to Sell dated 12.07.2010 (Ex.D it does stand to reason that a person to whom earnest money w not clear that if a 02 months, 27.12.2012. -2022 (O&M) -6- the execution of Agreement to Sell dated 12.07.2010 (Ex.D The fact that the said monies were transferred by the appellant the account of the defendant towards payment of earnest money and not by way of loan is also borne out from the fact executed between the plaintiff and the defendant for the alleged loan of -. It has been contended by the plaintiff that the said amount was given by him to the defendant in the presen However, the plaintiff has failed to examine said Krishan Kumar. Further, there are inexplicable discrepancies forth by the plaintiffs, inasmuch as, in the plaint it has been mentioned that the aforesaid amount of ₹5,00,000/- was given by the plaintiff to the on 12.07.2010 for a period of 02 month notice dated 27.12.2012, it was mentioned that the said loan was advanced for a period of 02 years. Moreover, father of the plaintiff, namely, Lakhbir Singh/PW8 (appellant in RSA admitting that a sum of ₹39,00,000/ son Darshan Singh-appellant (in RSA-1133 11,00,000/- was withdrawn by him from his account towards payment of earnest money. Even the execution of Agreement to Sell dated 12.07.2010 (Ex.D-1/Mark-DA) has not been denied by PW it does stand to reason that a person to whom earnest money will require a friendly loan of not clear that if a loan was advanced by the plaintiff for a period of only months, then why legal notice was sent after 02 years only on 27.12.2012. the execution of Agreement to Sell dated 12.07.2010 (Ex.D-1/Mark- were transferred by the appellants in the account of the defendant towards payment of earnest money and not out from the fact that no pronote was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant for the alleged loan of It has been contended by the plaintiff that the said amount him to the defendant in the presence of Krishan Kumar. xamine said Krishan Kumar. explicable discrepancies in the case put in the plaint it has been mentioned was given by the plaintiff to the 0 for a period of 02 months; whereas in the legal 2, it was mentioned that the said loan was advanced for a period of 02 years. Moreover, father of the plaintiff, in RSA-374-2020) had deposed ,00,000/-in cash was lying with his 1133-2020) plus an amount of by him from his account towards payment of earnest money. Even the execution of Agreement to Sell dated DA) has not been denied by PW-8. As such, it does stand to reason that a person to whom ₹50,00,000/- was paid as ill require a friendly loan of ₹5,00,000/-. Moreover, it is loan was advanced by the plaintiff for a period of only then why legal notice was sent after 02 years only on RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1509- 11. dispute or controvert the above said 12. aforementioned 03 appeals bearing 2020; and 13. stand(s) disposed of. 14. connected cases. 06.05.2025 rishu -2022 (O&M) -7- Learned counsel for the appellant dispute or controvert the above said facts and findings In view of the discussion aforementioned 03 appeals bearing RSA No. 2020; and RSA No.1133-2020 are dismissed. Pending application(s) (in all the appeals) stand(s) disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable appellant-plaintiff is unable to s and findings. discussion here-in-above, all the RSA No.1509-2022; RSA No. 374- dismissed. (in all the appeals) if any also A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.09 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.