JASWANT SINGH Vs. SHALLU JASWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is the appellant, who aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the 'Act'), has filed the instant appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case, as set out in the complaint, are that on 15.6.2005, the respondent and her husband approached the appellant with an intention to purchase remaining share of Khasra No. 1601, situated in Village Sanghnai in presence of respectable persons of the village. The appellant agreed to sell the same and consideration was settled at Rs.35,000/ in between both the parties. At the relevant time, the respondent and her husband paid sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/ by way of cheque No.167409 of Punjab National Bank, Gagret, District Una, H.P. making it post dated as on 10.11.2005. A written agreement was also entered into, which was duly signed by the respondent and her husband. It was also agreed that if the cheque is returned without payment, then respondent and her husband shall be liable to pay double of cheque amount. Consequently, the sale deed was executed on 17.8.2005. At the time of registration of sale deed, the appellant bonafidely stated that consideration amount had been received by him on the basis of aforesaid cheque of Rs.35,000/and consideration was shown as Rs.10,000/ on the request of respondent's husband, who along with deed writer had pretended that consideration must have to be shown in the registered sale deed. Thereafter, the appellant requested many times to the respondent to pay cheque amount, but of no avail. On 31.12.2005, the appellant presented the cheque, but on 2.1.2006, the same was returned back unpaid with the remarks "insufficient funds". Thereafter, on 20.1.2006, the appellant issued a legal notice to the respondent, yet the payment was not made constraining him to file complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act.

(3.) In support of his complaint, the appellant examined three witnesses, but the learned trial court after recording the evidence and evaluating the same dismissed the complaint vide judgment dated 14.12.2007 on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove his case beyond shadow of doubt.