MANDEEP KAUR Vs. AJIT SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this common judgment, above said three regular second appeals are being disposed of. Since all the appeals are arising out of common issue of agreement dated 24.3.2008, therefore, facts are being taken from RSA No. 4152 of 2013.

(2.) Plaintiff Ajit Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,50,000/ - on the basis of agreement dated 24.3.2008 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of plaintiff and others along with future interest from the date of filing of suit till final realization of the amount. The amount involved in RSA No. 4153 of 2013 is 1,57,000/ - and in RSA No. 4154 of 2013 is also Rs. 1,57,000/ -. The evidence in all the three cases remains more or less the same.

(3.) Plaintiff filed the suit on the ground that defendant No. 1 along with her brother Harpreet Singh and mother Charanjit Kaur had taken an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/ - from the plaintiff on the basis of sending his son, namely, Baljinder Singh to Cyprus for studying there and plaintiff made payment of Rs. 1,17,930/ - through draft bearing No. 933668 dated 7.2.2008 drawn on Tarn Taran Central Co -operative Bank Ltd. Branch Goindwal Sahib in the name of Thomas Cook India Ltd., Jalandhar and Rs. 2,23,070/ - in cash was paid to defendant No. 1 along with her brother and mother. Defendant No. 1, her brother and mother did not fulfill the promise and on demand of refund of the amount, nothing was done, to which dispute arose and the matter was referred to village panchayat of Goindwal Sahib, where defendant No. 1 admitted about the transaction and liability and an agreement dated 24.3.2008 to that effect was executed vide which defendant No. 1 agreed to send the son of the plaintiff to Cyprus and in case of failure to repay the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/ - to the plaintiff within stipulated time of 15 days from the date of writing of the said agreement dated 24.3.2008. The agreement was duly written at the instance of defendant No. 1, which was signed by the attesting witnesses. Defendant No. 2 Charanjit Kaur, mother of defendant No. 1, was also present but she did not sign and therefore, she was impleaded as proforma defendant in the suit.