RSA No.511 of 2009 (O&M 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 511 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.02.2011 Swaran Lal ......Appellant Versus Rajesh Kumar .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the appellant Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for the respondent **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20.2.1996. ` 90,000/- were paid towards earnest money by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of execution of the agreement to sell in question. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 20.8.1996. However, on the stipulated date, defendant failed to appear before the Sub Registrar for execution of the sale deed although the plaintiff had remained present in the said Office to perform his part of the contract. Defendant in his written statement, on the other hand, has denied the execution of the agreement to sell in question. It was averred that the agreement to sell in question was a forged RSA No.511 of 2009 (O&M 2 document. In fact, defendant was a Committee member of the Committee which was being run by the father of the plaintiff. Since the defendant could not pay back the balance installments of the Committee, the father of the plaintiff took signatures of the defendant on some blank papers. The agreement to sell in question had been written on the said papers. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD 2.Whether plaintiff has concealed true facts from this Court, if so, its effect?OPD 3.Wheher defendant executed agreement of sale dated 20.2.1996 in favour of plaintiff?OPP 4.In case, issue No.3 is decided in favour of plaintiff, whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of agreement dated 20.2.1996?OPP 5.Relief” Vide judgment and decree dated 6.10.2005, the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ludhiana decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal filed by the defendant by the Additional District Judge Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance basing his claim on agreement to sell dated 20.2.1996 executed by the defendant in his favour. The defendant admitted his signatures on RSA No.511 of 2009 (O&M 3 the agreement to sell in question. Since the defendant had admitted his signatures on the agreement to sell in question, the Courts below rightly held that the non-examination of the attesting witness to the agreement to sell was not fatal to the case of the plaintiff. A photocopy of the agreement to sell in question shown, during the course of arguments, reveals that the same is duly signed by the defendant. It does not appear to have been incorporated on the papers which were already signed by the defendant. The plea taken by the defendant that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers was not established on record. Merely because the possession of the suit land had not been handed over to the plaintiff, at the time of execution of the agreement to sell in question, would not lead to an inference that the agreement to sell in question was a forged document. The possession of the suit land would have been handed over at the time of the execution of the sale deed to the plaintiff. Moreover, it was agreed between the parties that the possession of the suit land would be delivered at the time of the execution of the sale deed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( SABINA ) JUDGE February 28, 2011 arya