Gurmukh Singh v. Jaswant Kaur

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Markandey Katju
Gyan Sudha Misra
Judgment Date: 2011-04-04
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Gurmukh Singh

Respondents

Jaswant Kaur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A.V. Palli
• Rekha Palli

Counsels for Respondents

• K.G. Bhagat
• Manju Bhagat
• Dr. Manohar Singh Bakshi
• Vineet Bhagat
• Debasis Misra

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Civil Appeal concerns a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,31,000 brought by the plaintiff-appellant Gurmukh Singh against the defendant-respondent Jaswant Kaur on the basis of a pronote and a receipt dated 2 May 1994, whereby the defendant allegedly borrowed Rs. 1,50,000 and undertook to repay with interest. The defendant denied execution, alleging that the pronote and receipt were forged. The trial court held that the pronote and receipt were executed but rejected the claim on the ground that the documents were not duly stamped under the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, and that the stamps affixed on the pronote had been removed from another document. The first appellate court and the High Court agreed with the trial court, resulting in dismissal of the suit on stamping grounds. The appellant challenged these concurrent findings in this appeal. The Supreme Court observed that the findings of the courts below are findings of fact and cannot be interfered with on appeal, and it held that the pronote cannot be taken into consideration due to stamping irregularities and the provenance of the stamps. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no costs, underscoring the importance of proper stamp duty for enforceability of documentary instruments.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Stamps Act, 1899

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Findings of the courts below are findings of fact and cannot be interfered with on appeal.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The plaintiff-appellant contends that the pronote and receipt were executed by the defendant and evidence of the debt supports his claim for recovery. He argues that the documents should be admissible and reliable to prove the debt, notwithstanding stamping questions raised by the courts below.

Contentions of Respondents

The defendant denied execution and alleged the pronote and receipt were forged and fictitious. She argued that improper stamping and material irregularities render the instruments defective and unusable as evidence of the debt.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## [2011] 4 S.C.R. 222 A ## GURMUKH SINGH ## _v._ JASWANT KAUR (Civil Appeal No. 5140 of 2004) B APRIL 04, 2011 ## [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] - - _Suit Suit for recovery Execution of pronote and_ - _receipt by the respondent in favour of the appellant Failure_ - C _of the respondent to repay the amount Suit filed by the_ - _appellant for recovery of the amount Rejected by all. three the courts below on the finding that the documents were not duly stamped and that the_ stamps _affixed on the pronote were_ - - _removed from another document Interference with Held:_ D _Findings of the courts below are findings of fact and cannot_ - _be interfered with The pronote in question cannot be taken_ - _into consideration Indian Stamps Act, 1899._ CIVl'l APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. E 5140 of 2004. From the Judgment & Order dated 11.8.2003 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 1069 of 2002. F A.V. Palli, Rekha Palli for the Appellant. K.G. Bhagat, Manju Bhagat, Dr. Manohar Singh Bakshi, Vineet Bhagat, Debasis Misra for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.8.2003 in R.S.A. No.1069 of 2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. H 222 GURMUKH SINGH _v._ JASWANT KAUR 223 [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.] 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A 3. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,31,000/-. He claimed that the defendant had executed a pronote and receipt dated 2.5.1994 whereby the defendant had 8 borrowed a suni of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same along with interest @ 2% per annum on demand. Since the defendant had not paid the aforesaid amount, the suit was filed. 4. The defendant-respondent contested the suit and denied the execution of the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. She alleged that the aforesaid pronote and receipt were forged and fictitious documents. C . 5. The trial court on the basis of evidence found that the 0 pronote and receipt were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. However, the trial court rejected the plaintiffs claim by holding that the said documents were not duly stamped as required under the provisions of Indian Stamps Act. It was ~ound by the trial court that the stamps which were affixed on E the pronote were removed from another document and affixed on the said pronote. ·· 6. The first appellate court and the High Court have agreed With the view of the trial court. Thus all the three courts below decided against the appellant. F 7. The findings of the courts below are findings of fact and we cannot interfere with the same in this appeal. The finding is that the stamps which have been affixed were removed from other documents, anc:J. hence, it has rightly been said that such a pronote cannot be taken into consideration~ G 8. Thus there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. No costs. • N.J. Appeal dismissed. H