R.S.A.NO.257 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. No.597-C of 2009 and R.S.A.NO.257 OF 2009 Date of decision:19th November, 2009 Gurmail Kaur and others ......Appellants Versus Bhajan Singh and another ......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate for the appellants. Rajive Bhalla, J(Oral) The appellants challenge judgments and decrees dated 27.07.2001 and 29.08.2008, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Samrala and the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, decreeing the suit filed by respondent no. 1 and dismissing their appeal. The plaintiff/respondent no. 1, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 7.10.1998, by pleading that the Naurang Singh (deceased), now represented by the appellants had agreed to sell, land measuring 34 kanals 14 marlas at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for a total consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Naurang Singh received Rs. 5,70,000/- as earnest money and agreed to execute a sale deed on 15.02.1999. However, on 15.02.1999, R.S.A.NO.257 OF 2009 -2- Naurang Singh did not come forward to execute the sale deed compelling, the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 to file the present suit. In response to the pleadings, in the plaint, Naurang Singh filed a written statement setting up a defence that his son Narpinder Singh may have borrowed some amount from the plaintiff. Naurang Singh was brought to the office of one Shri P.S.Batra, where his thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers for the ostensible purpose of obtaining a loan for the purchase of buffaloes. It was pleaded that as he did not execute any agreement, much less the agreement in dispute, the agreement is the result of a fraud, perpetuated by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1. The trial court, after considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, decreed the suit. The trial court held that respondent no. 1 has proved the execution of the sale deed, the payment of earnest money and his readiness and willingness to execute the agreement to sell. With respect to the plea of fraud, the trial court held that as Naurang Singh had admitted his thumb impressions on the agreement, it could be safely presumed that the agreement to sell had been executed by him. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 29.08.2008, the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. Counsel for the appellants submits that the courts below have committed an error in holding that Naurang Singh has admitted the execution of the agreement to sell. All that Naurang Singh admitted, was his thumb impression on blank papers and therefore, R.S.A.NO.257 OF 2009 -3- the courts below were not justified in drawing an inference that the agreement has been admitted. It is further submitted that as per the recitals in the agreement to sell, Rs. 30,000/- alone remained to be paid. It is, therefore, surprising that respondent no. 1 postponed the execution of the sale deed for such a small amount. Another argument pressed into service, is that respondent no. 1 has failed to prove the source of earnest money paid to Naurang Singh, the agreement cannot be enforced. I have heard counsel for the appellants, considered the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below but express my inability to accede to the argument advanced by counsel for the appellants or to hold that any question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration. The trial court and the first appellate court have recorded concurrent findings that the agreement to sell stands proved by the deposition of the attesting witnesses and the scribe. The payment of earnest money has been proved by the deposition of respondent no. 1, the attesting witnesses and the scribe. Furthermore, the execution of the agreement is proved by an entry in the register maintained by scribe. This apart, respondent no. 1 has proved that he was present before the Sub Registrar on 15.02.1999, the date fixed for the execution of the sale deed. The argument that the courts below have misconstrued the admission, in the written statement is irrelevant as the agreement to sell stands proved by the deposition of respondent no. 1 and his witnesses. The written statement discloses an unsuccessful attempt, on the part of Naurang Singh, to raise a defence of fraud as while admitting his thumb impression, he set up a defence that he was made to affix his thumb impression on blank R.S.A.NO.257 OF 2009 -4- papers. The onus to establish that his thumb impressions were obtained on a blank paper or that he did not agree to execute the agreement, lay upon Naurang Singh. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence to prove the ingredients of his plea of fraud, the courts below had no option but to hold that the agreement to sell stands proved. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for adjudication, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 19th November, 2009 Shivani Kaushik