Regular Second Appeal No. 3751 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 3751 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:September 20, 2010 Chand Singh ---Appellant versus Harpal Singh ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Surinder Gandhi, Advocate, for the appellant *** GURDEV SINGH, J. The appellant-defendant, Chand Singh, has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.5.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, vide which he dismissed the appeal filed by this defendant against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)Ferozepur, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent-Harpal Singh for possession of the land in dispute situated in village Gill, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.5.2002, executed in his favour by the defendant, for a total consideration of Rs. 1,42,625/-. Regular Second Appeal No. 3751 of 2010 -2- The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant agreed to sell land measuring 8 kanals 3 marlas in his favour and received Rs. 1,25,000/- as earnest money. Agreement was duly executed in his favour by the defendant in the presence of the witnesses and as per the terms of the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed on 19.5.2003 after the payment of the balance sale consideration. As per the agreement, he went to the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Talwandi Bhai, on the date fixed, along with the balance sale consideration and sufficient amount for incurring the expenses of the stamp paper etc. but the defendant did not turn up. The defendant contested the suit. In his written statement he denied the contentions of the plaintiff and pleaded that no such agreement was ever executed by him in favour of the plaintiff and the same has been forged and fabricated by the plaintiff in connivance with the marginal witnesses and the scribe. The following issues were framed by the trial court on the pleadings of the parties:- 1. Whether the defendant executed an agreement to sell dated 20.5.2002 in favour of plaintiff for sale of land measuring 8 kanals 3 marlas as detailed in the heading of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff paid Rs. 1,25,000/- to defendant towards earnest money at the time of execution of agreement to sell? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of agreement of sale? OPP 4. If issue No. 3 is not proved whether plaintiff is entitled to alternative relief for recovery of Rs. 1,42,625/- as Regular Second Appeal No. 3751 of 2010 -3- pleaded?OPP 5. Whether agreement to sell is forged and fabricated document? OPD 6. Relief. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, Jagtar Singh, who attested the agreement to sell, as PW-2 and Charanjit Singh, Document Writer, who scribe the same, as PW-3. The defendants himself stepped into the witness box as DW-1 and examined Mohan Singh as DW-2, in rebuttal to the evidence so produced by the plaintiff. After going through the evidence and hearing counsel for both the sides, learned trial court decided issues No. 1 to 3 and 5 in favour of the plaintiff and resultantly, decreed his suit for specific performance. The defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court but the same was dismissed, as aforesaid. It has been submitted by the counsel for the defendant that the finding recorded by the trial court regarding the execution of the agreement to sell by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff suffers from illegality as such a finding could not have been recorded on the basis of the evidence so produced by the plaintiff. The attesting witness examined by him for proving the agreement, is interesting witness as he is partner with him in his business of commission agent and previously his father was the partner. He also submitted that the witnesses made discrepant statements during their cross examination which itself creates doubt in the genuineness of the agreement. He also contended that the endorsement of the Stamp Vendor on the back side of the agreement does not bears the signatures of the parties and the stamp vendor, which also creates doubt in the genuineness Regular Second Appeal No. 3751 of 2010 -4- of the agreement. All the points raised by the counsel for the defendant, relate to the appreciation of the evidence. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court after due appreciation of the evidence, so produced by the parties, recorded the finding against the defendants. There is nothing on the record to conclude that the finding is based on no evidence or misreading of evidence or that it suffers from absolute perversity. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 20, 2010 PARAMJIT