REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5140 OF 2004

Gurmukh Singh .. Appellant

-versus-

Jaswant Kaur .. Respondent  

J U D G M E N T

Markandey Katju, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated  

11.8.2003 in R.S.A. No.1069 of 2002 of the High Court of Punjab and  

Haryana at Chandigarh.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  

3. The  plaintiff-appellant  had  filed  a  suit  for  recovery  of  

Rs.2,31,000/-.  He claimed that the defendant had executed a pronote  

and receipt dated 2.5.1994 whereby the defendant had borrowed a sum

of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same along  

with interest @ 2% per annum on demand.  Since the defendant had not  

paid the aforesaid amount, the suit was filed.  

4. The  defendant-respondent  contested  the  suit  and  denied  the  

execution of the pronote and receipt  in favour of  the plaintiff.   She  

alleged that the aforesaid pronote and receipt were forged and fictitious  

documents.    

5. The trial court on the basis of evidence found that the pronote and  

receipt  were  executed  by  the  defendant  in  favour  of  the  plaintiff.  

However, the trial court rejected the plaintiff’s claim by holding that  

the  said  documents  were  not  duly  stamped  as  required  under  the  

provisions of Indian Stamps Act.  It was found by the trial court that the  

stamps which were affixed on the pronote were removed from another  

document and affixed on the said pronote.

6. The first appellate court and the High Court have agreed with the  

view of the trial court.  Thus all the three courts below decided against  

the appellant.

2

7. The  findings  of  the  courts  below are  findings  of  fact  and  we  

cannot interfere with the same in this appeal.  The finding is that the  

stamps which have been affixed were removed from other documents,  

and hence, it has rightly been said that such a pronote cannot be taken  

into consideration.  

8. Thus there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. No costs.

……………………………..J. (Markandey Katju)

……………………………..J. (Gyan Sudha Misra)

New Delhi;  April 04, 2011

3