RSA No.93/2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.93/2010(O&M) Date of decision: 02.12.2011. Angrej Singh and another ....................Appellants v. Sukhwinder Singh and another .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Manvinder Singh Sidhu,Advocate for the appellants. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Defendants/appellants are in second appeal against the judgements and decrees of the courts below whereby suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.1.2011 filed by respondent/plaintiff was partly decreed by the learned trial court vide judgement and decree dated 27.7.2007 and the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff was accepted by the learned appellate court in toto and defendants/appellants were directed to execute the sale deed within a period of two months failing which the respondent/plaintiff was held entitled to seek the appropriate remedy available under law. Briefly noticed the facts of the present case are that RSA No.93/2010 (O&M) 2 plaintiff/respondent no.1-Sukhwinder Singh filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.1.2001 allegedly executed by defendants/appellants regarding land measuring 16 kanals. It was averred that defendants who are owners and in exclusive possession of the suit land measuring 16 kanals entered into an agreement to sell with plaintiff/respondent on 11.1.2001 @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. The plaintiff/respondent paid a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- as earnest money in cash. The target date for execution of the sale deed was fixed on 9.1.2004 on payment of balance sale consideration. It was alleged by the plaintiff/respondent that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendants/appellants did not turn up on 9.1.2004 for executing the sale deed. It was further alleged by the plaintiff/respondent that at the time of execution of the agreement to sell the suit land was free from all encumbrances but defendants/appellants in connivance with officials of defendant no.3/respondent no.2-Punjab National Bank mortgaged land measuring 15 kanals 16 marlas including the land measuring 6 kanals 3 marlas out of the suit land in favour of said bank for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and a rapat no.443 dated 22.4.2003 was entered in the jamabandi. It was alleged that the plaintiff/respondent was not bound by the same and that he was ready to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,000/- out of the the balance sale consideration. It was stated that thus the plaintiff was entitled for the grant of decree of specific RSA No.93/2010 (O&M) 3 performance of the agreement to sell and in the alternative for recovery of Rs.1,15,000/- already paid as earnest money and Rs.85,000/- as damages, totalling Rs.2,00,000/-. Upon notice, appellants/defendants filed written statement alleging therein that the agreement to sell dated 11.1.2001 was a forged and fabricated document manipulated in connivance with Baldev Singh, Balbir Singh and Nachhater Singh, who are partners of M/s Modern Trading Commission Agent, Mallanwala- brothers of Sukhwinder Singh plaintiff. It was alleged that in fact Angrej Singh defendant/appellant had been selling his agricultural produce to the said Commission Agent and the amount of Rs.1,15,000/- was outstanding against him after selling khariff 2002 crop. The outstanding amount being huge one, Baldev Singh etc. obtained signatures of defendants on blank papers as security for repayment of outstanding amount of Rs.1,15,000/- because defendants Angrej Singh and Amarjit Singh were cultivating the land jointly. It was further alleged that Angrej Singh had repaid the amount of Rs.1,15,000/- by selling Rabbi Crop in 2003 and after settling the account with M/s Modern Trading Commission Agent he asked for those blank papers kept as security upon which Baldev Singh etc. told that those papers were lying at their home and they assured to return the same. It was alleged that since at that time relations between defendants/appellants and Baldev etc. were cordial so he did not insist for return of those RSA No.93/2010 (O&M) 4 papers. It was also alleged that since defendants/appellants were contemplating to sell their khariff crop to some other Commission Agent, M/s Modern Trading Company started claiming Rs.1,15,000/- from the defendants/appellants upon which defendants filed a suit for permanent injunction against Modern Trading Company which was stated to be pending. It was alleged that thereafter plaintiff/respondent- Sukhwinder Singh at the instance of Baldev Singh etc. forged and fabricated the alleged agreement to sell dated 11.1.2001 by using the blank signed papers kept as security with M/s Modern Trading Company. It was denied that defendants/appellants had ever executed any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff/respondent Sukhwinder Singh. It was alleged that the market value of the suit land was more than Rs.2,50,000/- per acre and as such it was quite improbable that defendants would have agreed to sell the suit property at such lower price of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Execution of the alleged agreement dated 11.1.2001 in the presence of any witness was denied rather it was alleged that the marginal witnesses were close relatives and friends of plaintiff/respondent-Sukhwinder Singh. As regards the mortgaging the land with respondent no.2- Bank it was asserted that the defendants had got right to do the same. Upon pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective claim. The learned trial court after hearing both sides and on the basis of evidence available on RSA No.93/2010 (O&M) 5 record partly decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,15,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 11.1.2001 till the date of decree and further granted future interest @ 6% per annum. Against the said decree, defendants chose not to file any appeal. Plaintiff/respondent- Sukhwinder Singh preferred an appeal challenging the impugned judgement and decree dated 27.7.2007 passed by the learned trial court whereby relief for specific performance was declined and the suit was decreed only for alternative relief of recovery of damages. The learned appellate court after hearing both sides decreed the suit in toto and directed the defendants to execute the sale deed within two months failing which the plaintiff was held entitled to seek appropriate remedy available under the law. Aggrieved against the said judgement and decree dated 25.5.2009, defendants have filed the present appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants that the agreement to sell dated 11.1.2001 is a forged and fabricated one as the signatures of the appellants were obtained on blank papers in the normal course of their transactions with M/s Modern Trading Company, Commission Agents, whose partners are none else but brothers of plaintiff/respondent Sukhwinder Singh. It is further contended that in the facts of the case alternative relief of refund of earnest money was granted by the trial court and therefore there was no occasion for the learned appellate court to reverse such a finding. RSA No.93/2010 (O&M) 6 After hearing the learned counsel, I find no force in the submissions made by him being a pure finding of facts concurred by both the Courts below. The learned appellate court has found that execution of agreement to sell dated 11.1.2001 (Ex.P1) stands duly proved by the attesting witnesses namely Harbans Singh and Baljinder Singh and PW3 Jorawar Singh, Deed Writer who scribed the agreement. PW3 Jorawar Singh, Deed Writer also stated that he made an entry in the register at Sr.No.928 dated 11.1.2001 regarding the agreement and the said entry was also signed by defendants Angrej Singh and Amarjit Singh at the time of execution of the agreement. It was noticed by the learned appellate court that plaintiff Angrej Singh while appearing as DW2 stated that his signatures on the blank papers were taken in the month of December 2001, whereas the signatures on Ex.P1 were taken on 11.1.2001 and therefore version of Angrej Singh DW2 pleaded in the pleadings as well as in his affidavit Ex.DW2/A seems to be false and baseless. It was also noticed by the appellate court that regarding the alleged fraud the defendants had never made any complaint to the police or to the court or to any other respectable of the area. As regards the relationship between the plaintiff and M/s Modern Trading Company, it was found that defendants failed to establish any nexus between the two and therefore, failed to prove any forgery or deception. The learned appellate court also took note of the fact that RSA No.93/2010 (O&M) 7 though legality and validity of the agreement to sell Ex.P1 was upheld by the learned trial court but still the defendants/appellants did not prefer any appeal against the same which goes to admit the execution of the agreement to sell. The learned appellate court, in my opinion, has rightly held that case of the plaintiff stood duly proved and as such the trial court rightly came to the conclusion regarding execution of the agreement to sell Ex.P1. In view of the foregoing discussion no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. Dismissed. 02.12.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge