RSA No. 1769 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1769 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.4.2011. Kamla Devi .......Appellant Vs. Harpal Singh & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. A.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shilpa Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 2.12.2004. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that defendant No.1 was owner of the suit property and had agreed to sell the land measuring 4 Kanals to the plaintiff for a consideration of `. 9,22,020/-. The agreement to sell was executed in this regard by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff on 2.12.2004. Defendant No.1 received `. 1,00,000/- towards earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement to sell in question. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 30.5.2005. However, the defendant No.1, in order to grab the amount paid by the plaintiff, forged an agreement to sell dated 18.1.2005 in connivance with defendant No.2. Plaintiff had remained present RSA No. 1769 of 2011 (O&M) -2- in the office of Sub Registrar on the stipulated date, fixed for execution of the sale deed but defendant No.1 had failed to appear to perform his part of the contract. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. The execution of the agreement to sell in question was denied. It was averred that the defendant No.1 had executed an agreement to sell dated 18.1.2005 in favour of defendant No.2 and had received a total sale consideration of `. 12,70,500/-. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether defendant executed an agreement to sell dated 2.12.2004 with the plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance as prayer for? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP 4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 5. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Relief.” Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 16.4.2010, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 2.12.2004. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.1 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the RSA No. 1769 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.2011. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant No.1. After hearing the learned senior counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 2.12.2004. In order to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell in question, plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and examined attesting witnesses Satpal as PW-2 and Balwinder Singh as PW-3. The said witnesses proved the due execution of the agreement to sell in question. In order to substantiate his case, plaintiff further examined R.V.Vashishat, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert as PW-4. The agreement to sell in question was also signed by the husband of the defendant No.1. Plaintiff got his presence marked before the Sub-Registrar and proved on record his affidavit in this regard. Thus, the plaintiff had been successful in proving his case qua execution of agreement to sell in question as well as the fact that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Defendants, on the other hand, failed to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell dated 18.1.2005. The defendants failed to examine the scribe or the attesting witness to the said agreement. Moreover, in case the defendant No.2 had paid the entire sale consideration to defendant No.1, then there was no occasion for not executing the sale deed forthwith. Moreover, the defendant No.2 had also not raised the plea that he was a bonafide purchaser for consideration nor has sought RSA No. 1769 of 2011 (O&M) -4- specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 18.1.2005. Defendant No.2 has not challenged the decree passed by the trial court. In these circumstances, the courts below rightly held that the agreement to sell dated 18.1.2005, set up by the defendants, was not a genuine document. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 25, 2011 Gurpreet