R.S.A.No.2653 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2653 of 2005 Date of Decision : 8.3.2010 Ajit Singh ....Appellant Versus Paramjit Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Meenakshi Poswal, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 19.10.2001 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 19.3.2004. The appellant had filed a suit for specific performance alleging that an agreement to sell had been executed by one Sarwan Singh who was his employee and was residing at his farm to sell a house for a total consideration of Rs.37,000/-. The agreement to sell is dated 31.10.1994 and Rs.35,000/- were received as earnest money by Sarwan Singh and the sale was to be executed by 30.4.1995. Sarwan Singh is said to have died on 20.8.1995 and the instant suit was filed against the successors-in-interest of Sarwan Singh to R.S.A.No.2653 of 2005 -2- enforce the agreement to sell. The Courts below did not find the agreement to sell to be a genuine document and also concluded that the readiness and willingness of the appellant to perform his part of the agreement is not established as during the life time of Sarwan Singh no attempt was made to execute the sale deed and therefore discarded the plea of the appellant that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are erroneous and liable to be set aside. He has referred to the fact that an amount of Rs.35,000/- was paid by way of earnest money. He further contended that even if the findings were to be taken against him, yet the amount of Rs.35,000/- ought to have been returned to him and the alternate relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act ought to have been granted in his favour. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are perfectly in order and she sought to justify the impugned judgments in her favour. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgments. The appellant has pleaded that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.37000/-, a sum of Rs.35,000/- was paid to Sarwan Singh. The agreement to sell is dated 31.10.1994 and the sale deed was to be executed by 30.4.1995. This fact in itself becomes a R.S.A.No.2653 of 2005 -3- suspicious fact as there is evidence on record to show that Sarwan Singh was an employee of the appellant and was working with him as a labourer. In case he had parted with Rs.35,000/- out of Rs.37,000/-, which is the total sale consideration, the appellant as a prudent man would have taken some steps to take the possession of the house from the respondents for the simple reason that the major portion of the sale consideration had been paid to the respondents. No such attempt was made. Even during the life time of Sarwan Singh the appellant did not make any effort to get the sale deed executed. No notice was served upon him and thus the Courts below were right in concluding that the agreement appears to be a fabricated document and the passing of the sale consideration also is equally suspicious. In such an eventuality the Courts below were right in discarding the plea of specific performance and were also right in not resorting to the provisions of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 8.3.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss