R.S.A.No.1704 of 2009 (O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.1704 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 08, 2009 Balwinder Singh ---Appellant versus Bhupinder Pal Singh ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.S.Brar, Advocate, for the appellant *** SABINA J. Plaintiff –Balwinder Singh had filed a suit for rectification of the agreement to sell dated 8.8.2000. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 23.9.2006 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 5.12.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff as noticed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) in para 1 of its judgment read as under:- “ In brief, the facts of the present case are that the defendant along with his brother Tejinder Pal Singh were in need of the R.S.A.No.1704 of 2009 (O&M) {2} money and they approached the plaintiff and offered to sell their property total measuring 10 kanals in favour of the plaintiff and the sale consideration was settled at Rs. 8,00,000/- per killa. Out of the sale consideration, the defendant and his brother received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as earnest money and the agreement to sell dated 8.8.2000 was reduced into writing and the last date for the execution of the sale deed was settled as 8.8.2001. On the date fixed, the defendant and his brother did not come in the office of Sub Registrar for execution and registration of the sale deed and plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar. Ultimately, on 2.7.03 the brother of the defendant Tejinder Pal Singh executed the sale deed regarding his share in favour of plaintiff. At the time of execution of sale deed, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendants have got mentioned wrong numbers in the agreement. Then, the plaintiff requested the defendant to get executed and registered the sale deed of his share but the defendant had been putting the matter off on one pretext or the other, Hence, this suit.” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. The case of the plaintiff was that an agreement to sell had been executed by the defendant Bhupinder Pal Singh along with his brother Tejinder Pal Singh on 8.8.2000 with regard to 10 Kanals of land. Inadvertently, khasra numbers were not correctly mentioned in the R.S.A.No.1704 of 2009 (O&M) {3} agreement to sell. Tejinder Pal Singh had executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 2.7.2003 with regard to 4 kanals-8 marlas of land. However, defendant had failed to executed the sale deed qua his share in 10 kanals of land which had been agreed to be sold to the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 8.8.2000. Defendant was proceeded ex parte before the trial court. Learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2,50,000/- and declined the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff. Plaintiff thereafter preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge. Plaintiff in order to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell, examined Darshan Singh as PW- 1 and Ajit Singh as PW-2-, attesting witnesses to the agreement to sell. However, a perusal of the sale deed dated 2.7.2003(shown during the course of arguments) it is evident that in the agreement to sell dated 8.8.2000, it is not found mentioned that the sale deed was executed with regard to 4 kanals-8 marlas of land comprised in Khasra No. 108//16/2, 25/111///5,6 Khata No. 592/632 but some different khasra numbers have been depicted in the same. In the sale deed dated 2.7.2003, it has not been mentioned that in the agreement to sell, correct khasra numbers had not been mentioned. Rather there is no mention of the agreement to sell in question and the sale deed executed by Tejinder Pal Singh in favour of the plaintiff. In these circumstances both the courts below have rightly held that the suit for specific performance could not be decreed with regard to khasra numbers which were not shown to be owned by the defendants,. Hence, the relief of rectification of agreement to sell was rightly declined by the courts below. R.S.A.No.1704 of 2009 (O&M) {4} No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 08, 2009 PARAMJIT