Regular Second Appeal No.956 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Regular Second Appeal No.956 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : May 08, 2009 Nathu Ram ... Appellant VERSUS Chhotu Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the appellant. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment dated 11.6.2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ferozepur, dismissing the appeal of the defendant – appellant (herein referred as the defendant) against the judgment and decree dated 9.6.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar. The suit of the plaintiff – respondent Chhotu Singh (herein referred as the plaintiff) for specific performance of the contract was decreed and defendant was directed to execute and get the sale-deed executed in the terms of the agreement dated 27.01.1998, after receiving the balance sale-consideration within two months. The plaintiff was directed to deposit the remaining sale- consideration within 45 days from the date of the judgment by the Trial Court i.e. 9.6.2007. It was further directed that in case of failure of the Regular Second Appeal No.956 of 2009 [ 2 ] defendant to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the sale-deed executed through Court. The first appeal preferred by the defendant was also dismissed. The facts leading to the filing of the suit are that the plaintiff filed it for specific performance of a compromise dated 27.1.1998 or in the alternative for recovery of Rs.3,15,800/-. It was averred that the defendant agreed to sell his land measuring 24 Kanals [Khasra Nos.118//19(8-0), 22 (8-0), 23(8-0)], situated in the area of village Bhagu, Tehsil Abohar at the rate of Rs.1,15,000/- per acre, after receiving a sum of Rs.1,41,000/- as earnest money for execution of the sale-deed. He was to execute the sale- deed on or before 15.2.1999. On 15.2.1999, the defendant after receiving an amount of Rs.16,900/- extended time for execution and registration of sale-deed upto 19.7.1999. Since the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale-deed, notice was issued, which also remained unresponded. The suit was filed and it was contested by the defendant by filing the written statement, in which, while denying all the allegations, he set up a plea that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff, which amount was returned to him along with interest. However, the plaintiff by making misuse of the blank stamp papers, which he got signed from him as security for advancing the loan, instead of returning the same to the defendant, misused the same. The issues were framed in the suit. Ultimately, the suit was decreed and the appeal preferred by the defendant – appellant was also dismissed. Krishan Kumar Goel, Deed Writer of Abohar (PW2), being the Regular Second Appeal No.956 of 2009 [ 3 ] scribe as well as the attesting witness proved the agreement (Ex.P-5) and its entry in the Register made by him (Ex.P-5/A). The other witness Hakam Singh (PW3), examined by the plaintiff proved that on 15.2.1999, the defendant after receiving further sum, extended the time for execution of the sale-deed. Besides, the above witnesses, the agreement has been proved by the plaintiff. To the contrary, the defendant has not led any evidence in order to disclose if the papers used for the agreement were misused, so as to construct an agreement to sell. Thus, in the absence of any such evidence, the evidence led by the plaintiff stands unrebutted. It is not the only agreement, which has been proved by the plaintiff, but the other writing vide which the date of execution of the sale-deed was extended has also been proved. Thus, plea set up by the defendant that once, he had thumb marked the blank stamp papers, turns to be false. Having scrutinised the judgments of both the courts below, the concurrent findings of facts appear to be on sound footing and the do not require any interference by this Court. No substantial question of law arises or is involved in this case. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE May 08, 2009 `gian' To be Referred to Reporter - Yes/ No