RSA No. 1068 of 2005 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1068 of 2005 Date of Decision: 11.9.2009 Kamlesh Rani ......Appellant Versus Kartar Chand (dead) through LRs. .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Malkiat Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for specific performance of agreement dated 10.8.1998, was decreed. Vide the aforesaid agreement, land measuring 6 kanals 2 marlas was purportedly agreed to be sold for a total sale consideration of Rs.6 lacs per acre. A sum of Rs.3,60,000/- was paid as earnest money. The balance was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed on or before 10.12.1998. On 17.12.1998, the parties extended the period for performance of the agreement to 21.1.1999. Since the sale RSA No. 1068 of 2005 (2) deed was not executed as agreed, the plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement by filing the present suit on 18.2.1999. In the written statement the defendant-appellant denied the execution of the agreement and alleged that the agreement is vague and result of fraud. It was also alleged that it was simply a loan transaction and not an agreement to sell. The execution of the agreement to sell was found to be proved on the basis of the testimony of Darshan Kumar Sareen, deed writer, who appeared as PW2 and PW1- Saro, who deposed that a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- was paid by the plaintiff as earnest money on the date of execution of the sale deed. The stand of the defendant in evidence was found to be contradictory to what was pleaded in the written statement. The defendant in cross-examination came up with the plea that the plaintiff visited her place with the marriage proposal of her son 2-1/2 years back along with deed writer and the witnesses. It was required that till the marriage proposal is finalised, she should enter into an agreement for cultivating their land. She has admitted that Saro and Jit Ram were brought as witnesses and her signatures were obtained on agreement and receipt. The learned trial Court found that the stand of the defendant in the written statement denying the execution of the agreement and terming it to be a loan transaction is contradicted by her statement on oath. The plea that there was an agreement in relation to RSA No. 1068 of 2005 (3) the marriage proposal of her son was not the case set up in the written statement. Such finding was affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that agreement to sell Exhibit P.1 is vague as it does not specify the total sale consideration, which was to be paid by the plaintiff to the vendee. She has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported as Surjit Singh and Another v. Manohar Lal and others, 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 162. It is also contended that the stand of the defendant is that of denial of an agreement to sell and the discrepancy in the evidence with that of pleadings is inconsequential. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is no doubt true that in the agreement, the total sale consideration for land measuring 6 kanals 2 marlas is not specified. However, it is specified that the land measuring 6 kanals 2 marlas is agreed to be sold @ Rs.6 lacs per acre. On the basis of such recital, it is not difficult to arrive at the total sale consideration which becomes payable to the defendant-appellant. The land agreed to be sold is specified in the agreement. In Surjit Singh's case (supra), it was found that the vendor was not clear as to how much land is available to be sold; agreement does not specify as to how much land out of the total land stood sold and what was the remaining land available for execution of the sale deed. It was with the said background that it was held that reading of the document does not spell out that how much area is salable and how much consideration would RSA No. 1068 of 2005 (4) be payable accordingly. The said judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case. The argument that that the discrepancy in the statement of the defendant in evidence and that in the pleadings is inconsequential, is not tenable. The defendant has denied the execution of the agreement in the written statement but in evidence she has admitted her signatures on the receipt and the agreement. She has also admitted the presence of the attesting witnesses, but she came up with the plea that there was a marriage proposal which led the signing of the aforesaid agreement. In view of such contradictory stand of the defendant-appellant, the Courts below are perfectly justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 11.9.2009 ds