Kuldeep Singh v. Devi Dayal and Another

IN T

Kuldeep Singh Devi Dayal and

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

Fee present Regular trial Court, vide plaintiffs for r appellate Court Brief Facts

2.

Bri agents dealing i Kurukshetra, an agricultural prod agricultural nee the parties were and rojnamcha a the plaintiffs an THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS Da

VERSUS another

ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAN r. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the ap -.-

ANNU, J (Oral). eling aggrieved by the concurren r Second Appeal has been prefe e judgment and decree dated 0 recovery, which judgment was vide judgment and decree dated iefly stated, the case of the plai in sale and purchase of agricultu nd the defendant was their regu duce through them and also use ds. It is the pleading of the plai e maintained in their regular ac and on 30.04.2011 the defendant nd a sum of ₹15,358/- was debit

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-3242-2025 (O&M) ate of Decision : 09.12.2025

....Appellant

....Respondents NDEEP PANNU appellant. nt findings of the Courts below, erred by the defendant. The learn

07.04.2017, decreed the suit of s affirmed by the learned low

22.07.2025. intiffs is that they are commiss ural produce at New Grain Mark ular customer who used to sell ed to take advances from them intiffs that all transactions betw ccount books in rokars, bahi kh t borrowed a sum of ₹17,000/- fr ted in the account of the defenda

ned wer sion ket, his for ween ata, rom ant,

and the total a outstanding bala subsequent entr and after adju ₹4,00,000/- rem compelling the lite and future in

3.

In regarding maint mis-joinder of p the plaintiffs an that the signatu fraudulently obt Tax Department to create a false amount to the p on any of the da

4.

06.01.2015:

¶1₹4,

¶2pre

¶3OP amount was duly entered in t ance of ₹2,58,000/- against the d ies dated 27.07.2011, 28.11.201 ustment of various receipts a mained outstanding against the de plaintiffs to file the present suit nterest @ 12% per annum till rea the written statement, the defe tainability, locus standi, cause parties. The defendant denied h nd denied acknowledging any ba ures/thumb impressions appear tained under the pretext of prod t, and that the plaintiffs had man liability. The defendant specific plaintiffs and asserted that no am ates mentioned by the plaintiffs. e following issues were framed Whether the plaintiffs are e ,00,000/- along with pendente lit Whether the suit of the pla esent form? OPD Whether the plaintiff has no PD

the rojnamcha, acknowledging defendant. It is further pleaded t 11 and 23.05.2012 were also ma and commissions, an amount efendant, despite repeated deman t for recovery along with pende alization. endant took preliminary objecti of action, limitation, estoppel having borrowed any amount fr alance once or ever. It was plea ring on the account entries w ducing the books before the Inco nipulated and forged the said entr cally disputed that he ever owed mount was ever borrowed or sett by the trial Court vide order da entitled to decree for recovery te and future interest? OPP aintiffs is not maintainable in locus standi to file the present su

an ade, of nds, ente ons rom were ome ries any tled ated y of uit?

¶4lice

5.

5.

In Devi Dayal as reiterated the av Kumar, official summoned reco financial years 2 Ex.P18 to Ex.P2 Ram Yadav, R summoned reco to be correct as evidence Ex.P1

6.

On examined himse was cross-exam Ex.D1 to Ex.D7 Findings of the

7.

evidence led by proved that pla Company and th agency, and not the plaintiffs pl Whether the plaintiff firm i ence to do the business of money Relief. order to prove their case, the p PW-1, who tendered his duly verments made in the plaint. Th l of the Income Tax Departm ord pertaining to the income tax 2007-2008 to 2012-2013 and co 23 and stated them to be correct RDO, UBOI stepped into the rd pertaining to account details o s per his office record. The pla to Ex.P30 and Mark-A and Mar n the other hand, to rebut the ca elf as DW-1 and tendered his du mined at length. The defendant al

¶7e trial Court e learned Trial Court, after appr y the parties, recorded the findi aintiff No.1 is the sole propri hat the business is a proprietorsh a partnership firm as alleged by laced on record sufficient docu

s a money-lending firm having y-lending? OPD plaintiffs examined plaintiff No y sworn affidavit Ex.PW1/A e plaintiffs also examined Bhav ment, as PW-2, who brought returns of the plaintiff firm for ompared the same with photocop t as per office record. PW-3 Gan e witness box and produced of plaintiff firm and stated the sa aintiffs also adduced document rk-B. ase of the plaintiffs, the defend uly sworn affidavit Ex.DW1/A. lso produced documentary evide reciating the oral and document ings that the plaintiffs successfu ietor of M/s Shiv Shakti Trad hip concern engaged in commiss y the defendant. The Court held t umentary evidence in the form

o. 1 vesh pies nga ame tary dant He ence tary ully ding sion

income tax retur order passed by the proprietorsh

8.

customer of the plaintiffs. It wa defendant used the entries in the in the ordinary signatures/thum acknowledgmen through PW-1, fabrication of ac further corrobo documentary ev

9.

regarding non-m engaged in mon that the plaintiff to farmers/custo carrying on the Punjab Registra allegations of fr any evidence an rns Ex.P18 to Ex.P23, bank acc the Excise and Taxation Officer hip status of the firm. e Trial Court further found t plaintiffs and used to supply agr as proved through the account to borrow advances from the pl e rokar, rojnamcha, khatas and b y and regular course of bus mb impressions of the defendant nt of liability and that the plainti PW-2 and PW-3. The Court re ccount entries, observing that th rated by the income tax retur vidence. e learned Trial Court also hel maintainability of the suit on th ney lending without licence wa fs are engaged in commission ag omers in the regular course of business of money lending so ation of Money Lenders Act. raud and fabrication raised by t nd were insufficient to discharge

ount opening form Ex.P25, and r Ex.P30, all of which corrobora that the defendant was a regu ricultural produce at the shop of t books Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 that laintiffs from time to time, and t bahi accounts were duly maintain siness. The Court held that on the account entries amounted iffs had properly proved the entr ejected the plea of manipulation e entries in the account books w rn of the plaintiff firm and ot ld that the plea of the defend he ground that the plaintiffs w as without merit. It was conclu gency business and advancing l such business does not amount as to attract the provisions of The Court also held that m the defendant were unsupported the burden of proof.

ated ular f the ned d to ries n or were ther dant were oan t to mere

10.

Up that the plaintif interest from the Findings of the

11.

and documentar Court. It was he an unregistered returns Ex.P18 concern and the observed that corroborated the business of com during cross-ex produce to the show that the pl affirmed the fin account books o entry Ex.P15, an the plaintiffs an balance sheets allegations of m any evidence an led by the plaint the liability on 3 on overall consideration of the e ffs had proved recovery of Rs. e defendant, and therefore, decre e Lower Appellate Court e learned lower appellate court, ry evidence, affirmed the findi eld that the plea of the defendan partnership firm was without to Ex.P23 clearly reflected the e defendant failed to rebut this ev the order of the Excise and e status of plaintiff No.2 as a pro mmission agency. It was further xamination, admitted that he plaintiffs for many years and c laintiff firm was a partnership fi nding that the defendant had of the plaintiffs, including his s nd that the bahi entries Ex.P1 to nd corroborated by the income Ex.P27 to Ex.P29. The appella manipulation and fraud in the ac nd mere self-serving statements c tiffs. It was further held that sinc

30.04.2011, the suit filed on 22.0

evidence, the Trial Court conclu 4,00,000/- including principal eed the suit with costs. after re-appreciating the entire o ings recorded by the learned t nt regarding the plaintiff firm be any substance, as the income e plaintiff firm as a proprietors vidence. The appellate court furt d Taxation Officer Ex.P30 a oprietorship concern carrying on r noted that the defendant hims had been selling his agricultu could not produce any material firm. The lower appellate court a acknowledged his liability in signatures on Ex.P7 and the led o Ex.P17 had been duly proved tax returns Ex.P18 to Ex.P23 ate court held that the defendan ccount books were unsupported could not rebut the cogent evide ce the defendant had acknowled

04.2014 was well within the per

oral trial eing tax ship ther also self, ural l to also dger d by nt's d by nce ged

of limitation. Th trial Court at 9% prevailing rate judgment of the infirmity or ille learned lower ap

12.

Ag appellant has pr Submissions of

13.

Lea and decrees pas that both the Co documentary ev firm is an unr plaintiffs was b counsel, the pla the material on was further subm did they lead a argued that the a limitation and, t

14.

Lea the plaintiffs w could not have the entries in the he appellate court also upheld t % per annum, observing that the of interest in the market wa e learned trial Court was well egality, and was based on pro ppellate court dismissed the appe grieved by the concurrent fin eferred the present regular secon f learned counsel for the appell arned counsel for the appellant a sed by the Courts below are liab ourts below have failed to appre vidence produced by the appella egistered partnership firm and barred under Section 69 of th aintiffs have wrongly shown the record allegedly proves that th mitted that the plaintiffs did not any cogent evidence to prove th alleged acknowledgments relied therefore, of no legal consequenc arned counsel further submitted were never filed before the Inco been relied upon by the Courts e account books pertain only to

the rate of interest awarded by defendant himself admitted that as the same. Concluding that reasoned, did not suffer from a oper appreciation of evidence, eal with costs. ndings of the Courts below, nd appeal. lant argued that the impugned judgme ble to be set aside. It was conten eciate the facts of the case and ant. It was argued that the plain d, therefore, the suit filed by he Partnership Act. According emselves to be proprietors, wher he firm is a partnership concern t produce complete bahi khatas, he entries recorded therein. It w upon by the plaintiffs were beyo ce. that the balance sheets produced ome Tax Department and theref below. It was argued that most interest and, therefore, the same

any ents ntiff g to reas n. It nor was ond d by fore t of

not prove that a further submitte sale of crop wer every reason to counsel also sub even otherwise therefore, the C the law is well cannot take bene Findings of this

15.

I h appellant and p However, I do n Courts below h well as docum categorical find unregistered pa bank documents PW3. No contr findings.

16.

Fur rojnamcha and maintained in th Ex.P7 and corre himself in his w any principal amount was reco ed that Form-J (Ex.D4) receipts i re not properly accounted for by o disbelieve the bahi khatas pr bmitted that the balance sheets w they were never submitted befo Courts below erred in relying up settled that the respondents ha efit of any weakness in the defen s Court have considered the arguments erused the impugned judgments not find myself in agreement wi ave returned concurrent finding mentary evidence in detail. T dings that the plaintiff firm is a artnership firm. These findings s, Excise and Taxation record (E rary evidence has been produce rther, the Courts below have ext khata records (Ex.P1 to Ex.P he ordinary course of business. esponding entries in Ex.P15 hav written statement as well as durin

verable from the appellant. It w issued to the appellant at the time y the plaintiffs and hence there w roduced in the case file. Learn were not proved on record and t ore the Income Tax authorities, on the same. It was contended t ave to stand on their own legs nce of the appellant. raised by learned counsel for s and material available on reco ith the contentions raised. Both gs of fact after appreciating oral The Courts below have recor proprietorship concern and not are based on income tax retur Ex.P30), and the evidence of PW1 ed by the appellant to rebut th tensively examined the bahi entr P17), and found them to be d The signatures of the defendant ve been admitted by the defend ng his cross-examination. Once

was e of was ned ord. l as t an rns, 1 to hese ries, duly t on

acknowledgmen

22.04.2014 is c obtained fraudu allegations cann

17.

the plaintiffs ad as the transactio recorded on Issu suffer from any Conclusion

18.

In Court finds that which cannot b Accordingly, th respondents.

19.

Pen

December 09, 2 tripti Wh

Wh nt of liability dated 30.04.2011 clearly within limitation. The ulently has been rightly rejected not displace positive documentary e lower Appellate Court has als dvanced money to a customer do ons are incidental to their work a ues No.1 to 5 are well reasoned, illegality or perversity. view of the above and applyin t the impugned judgments are ba be interfered with in second app e present RSA is dismissed in li nding applications, if any, also st

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

stands admitted, the suit filed defence that the signatures w by the Courts below, as mere o ry evidence. so rightly held that merely beca oes not make them money lend as commission agents. The findi , supported by evidence, and do ng the settled legal principles, t ased on concurrent findings of f peal unless shown to be perve imine, without issuing notice to tand disposed off. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE

ing o

on were oral ause ers, ngs not this fact,