Mangal Chand vs Kam Nath

Kuldip Singh, J.—The Respondent had filed suit for recovery of Rs. 36,900/-against Appellant on the basis of writing dated 11.7.2004 vide which he allegedly entrusted Rs. 36,900/- to the Appellant which was to be returned to Respondent on demand. On 20.10.2008 Respondent demanded the amount of Rs. 36,900/- but Appellant did not return the amount. The Respondent issued notice dated 1.11.2008 to Appellant demanding return of Rs. 36,900/- but again the Appellant did not return the amount, hence the suit was filed.

The Appellant contested the suit by filing written statement and took preliminary objections of maintainability, lack of cause of action, suppression and concealment of material facts. He alleged that no amount of Rs. 36,900/- was entrusted by the Respondent to him nor any writing to this effect was executed. The Appellant took the plea that in the year 2003 he had purchased some judicial papers as per instructions of his counsel for filing application for partition. He had put his signatures on three blank judicial papers. The signed judicial papers were lying with him. He did not file application for partition. The Respondent was on visiting terms with him. The Respondent was in need of some judicial papers and asked the Appellant to bring some judicial papers from Manali and on this, the Appellant handed over judicial papers to Respondent alongwith one blank signed judicial paper. The Respondent manipulated the alleged entrustment deed of Rs. 36,900/- on such blank signed judicial paper of Appellant. In replication, the Respondent reiterated his stand and denied the case of the Appellant.

The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Manali decreed the suit on 8.3.2010 and appeal filed by the Appellant has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Kullu on 28.7.2010, hence second appeal.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. I have gone through the writing Ex.PW-2/B. PW-1 Kam Nath has placed on record entrustment deed mark ''X''. PW-2 Charan Dass scribe has proved entrustment deed Ex.PW-2/B on which earlier mark ''X'' was put. PW-3 Dharam Chand is the attesting witness of entrustment deed Ex.PW-2/B. In the affidavit Ex.PW-3/A, Dharam Chand has stated that he has seen the entrustment deed dated 11.7.2004 which was written by Charan Dass on the instructions of the 3 parties, the documents was read over and explained to the parties which was accepted to be correct and Mangal Chand Appellant had signed the entrustment deed in the presence of the witnesses and scribe. The execution of entrustment deed dated 11.7.2004 Ex.PW-2/B has been proved so also entrustment of Rs. 36,900/- by Respondent to Appellant. It has been proved on Rs. 36,900/- were not returned by Appellant to Respondent despite demand.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that suit filed by Respondent was time barred. The money was entrusted to the Appellant by way of trust and, therefore, in view of Section 10 of the Limitation Act it cannot be said that the suit filed by the Respondent was time barred.

The two Courts below after due appreciation of evidence on record have recorded findings of facts. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal which requires determination by this Court. Resultantly, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.