NAND LAL Vs. MOHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 24.8.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, H.P. in Civil Suit No.5/2003 titled as Mohar Singh vs. Nand Lal, decreeing the suit for a sum of Rs.2,01,600/-. The present appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Appellate Side) Rules, 1997. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment,

(2.) Shri Nand Lal, appellant herein, is referred to as "Ëœdefendant' and Shri Mohar Singh, respondent herein, is referred to as "Ëœplaintiff'. It is the plaintiff's pleaded case that he is a resident of village Hirani, P.O. Larankelo, Phati Nathan, Kothi Nagar, Tehsil & Distt. Kullu, H.P. and has large family including two daughters who are married at village Manali, where defendant who is closely related to his son-in-law, also resides. As a result of same, the plaintiff has cordial relations with the defendant and has been visiting his house. Plaintiff is not in good terms with his wife, due to her quarrelsome nature, and under her influence even his son has adopted an aggressive and quarrelsome attitude and behaviour towards him. Both his wife and son have thrown out his daughter-in-law from the house and judicial proceedings initiated by her are pending in Court. Considering the unhealthy atmosphere at home, after retirement and in his old age plaintiff intended to stay at Manali and set up his business. The matter was discussed with the defendant, who not only assured to arrange for a suitable land but also contacted various persons of the locality for the same. In the last week of November, 2000, plaintiff was informed by the defendant that deal/negotiation for the proposed land is likely to be finalized very shortly for which earnest money of approximately Rs.2 lacs be kept ready. On 30.9.2000, defendant approached the plaintiff at his village at Hirani, and informed him that some Property Dealer at Kullu had assured to get the deal settled for which purpose the defendant advised the plaintiff to accompany him to Kullu along with the amount of Rs.2 lacs for executing the agreement for sale. Acting upon such representation the plaintiff accompanied the defendant to Kullu along with a sum of Rs.2 lacs. However, upon reaching Kullu it was so learnt that the Property Dealer was not available as he had gone out of station in connection with some urgent work and was likely to come back after 2-3 days, hence, the deal could not be settled. In the background of unhealthy atmosphere at his house and considering the cordial relations between the parties, in good faith, plaintiff desired to keep the amount of Rs.2 lacs with the defendant as "ËœImanat' (entrustment) with the understanding that on the return of the Property Dealer and finalization of the deal, the said amount would be returned to him. As such, money was entrusted by the plaintiff to the defendant who also executed "Imanatnama" (deed of entrustment) subsequently. Since the defendant dilly-dallied the issue of finalization of the sale, at his own level plaintiff managed to buy property at Manali and in the first week of December, 2002 asked the defendant to return the money. Plaintiff also got a registered legal notice dated 27.12.2002 served upon the defendant without any response.

(3.) In January, 2003, defendant totally refused to return the amount, hence the suit. On the principal amount, a sum of Rs.1600/- as interest @12% per annum is also claimed. The stand taken by the defendant in the written statement is purely that of denial. The defendant has denied that he is close to the plaintiff's son-in-law or that the plaintiff used to visit his house at Manali. At no point of time plaintiff ever discussed any matter regarding his family or business with him nor any assurance to manage the land was given to the plaintiff. On 30.9.2000 he never visited the plaintiff at his village at Hiran or asked him to visit Kullu with the assurance that the deal for property would be settled. In fact he never visited Kullu on that day. In the absence of any entrustment of the money by the plaintiff, there was no occasion for him to have executed the document or handed over the same to the plaintiff, who being a Govt. employee had no reason to entrust money to him. In effect, it is averred that the Imanatnama procured by the plaintiff is a result of fraud, is fictitious and obtained by the plaintiff in a fraudulent manner in connivance with the witnesses. Notice dated 27.12.2002 was duly replied on 1.1.2003 which fact has been suppressed by the plaintiff from the Court. In replication, the plaintiff has reiterated the stand taken in the plaint but has specifically not denied the receipt of the reply to the notice.