GURDIP SINGH Vs. VIVEK AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is before this court against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by him for recovery of INR 2,25,000.00, was dismissed.

(2.) The claim made by the appellant-plaintiff was that father of the plaintiff had advanced loan of INR 1,50,000.00 to the respondent-defendant. As the same was not re-paid, the suit was filed. The loan was advanced vide two cheques dated 11.11.1997 and 29.11.1997 of INR 25,000.00 each and third cheque dated 1.1.1998 for INR 1,00,000.00. The claim of the appellant was defended by the respondent while stating that Jarnail Singh, father of the appellant, died leaving behind many legal heirs. The plaintiff alone does not have a right to file the suit without obtaining a succession certificate. It was further submitted that fathers of both the parties purchased land measuring 6 kanals 1 marla and land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas vide sale deed dated 7.8.1998, however, the sale deed was got executed by Jarnail Singhdeceased in his own name. Despite request and assurance, Jarnail Singh did not get the sale deed registered in favour of father of the respondent. Subsequently, he died. Jarnail Singh was paid INR 5,50,000.00 by the respondent-defendant and his family members for purchase of land, out of which he purchased land worth INR 2,75,000.00. The balance amount was returned by Jarnail Singh by way of different cheques in favour of the respondent-defendant and mother of the defendant. A memorandum of understanding was executed, vide which wife and brother of the appellant agreed to transfer 1/3rd share of the land purchased by Jarnail Singhdeceased to the father of the respondent-defendant in lieu of the payment already received. To pressurize the respondent-defendant and his family members not to ask for the land, the suit was filed. The learned trial court framed the following issues:

(3.) The plaintiff appeared himself and also produced Balwinder Singh, who supported the Will produced by the appellant-plaintiff. The respondent appeared himself before the court and produced partnership deed, dissolution deed, besides other documents. The trial court found that in his cross-examination, the appellant though denied that his father entered into any partnership with the respondent, however, he admitted that his wife and brother were partners with the defendant and his mother in the firm known as M/s Shiv Shakti Steels. He identified the signatures of his father- Jarnail Singh on the original partnership deed produced by the respondent. He further admitted that his father and father of the defendant were known to each other from 1990 onwards. In 1990, a firm known as M/s Mahaluxmi Industries was formed by the respondent, his mother and brother of the appellant and his wife. He further admitted that the amount given by the father of the appellant to the respondent was a loan transaction. No accounts were being maintained by his father. He further admitted that the firm- M/s Mahaluxmi Industries was dissolved in the year 2000 and dissolution deed was written at that time. He admitted that in the aforesaid memorandum of understanding, it was mentioned that 1/3rd of the land situated in village Jandiali will be transferred to Sushil Aggarwal, father of the respondent, in lieu of the investment made by him in the land. The appellant identified the signatures of his wife and brother on the memorandum of understanding (Ex. D2) produced by the respondent. He did not dispute the fact that he had not taken any succession certificate or had even filed any application for obtaining the same before or even during the pendency of the suit.