RSA No. 2005 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2005 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.5.2011. Nirmal Singh and another .......Appellants Vs. Satnam Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate for the appellants. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28.5.2003. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the defendants were owners of 16 Kanals of land. The agreement to sell had been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff on 28.5.2003 for a consideration of ` 2,70,000/- per acre. The defendants had received a sum of ` 2,60,000/- towards earnest money from the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement to sell in question. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 28.11.2003. Plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendants had failed to execute the sale deed in his favour. Defendants, in their written statement, denied the RSA No. 2005 of 2011 (O&M) -2- execution of the agreement to sell in question. It was averred that the defendants had taken a loan of ` 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 16.12.2000. However, the plaintiff and his uncle Mohan Singh prepared a document showing the loan amount as ` 1,43,000/-. Another document was prepared by the plaintiff and his uncle on 29.5.2001 and third one was prepared on 22.6.2001. The amount described in the said documents kept on increasing. The defendants had to pay a sum of ` 3,00,000/- to the plaintiff and Mohan Singh. The defendants only owed ` 1,50,000/- to the plaintiff and ` 1,50,000/- to Mohan Singh. The alleged agreement had been manipulated by the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendants entered into a valid agreement to sell dated 28.5.2003 for selling their 16 Kanals-0 Marla land and the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the same on the payment of balance sale consideration? OPP 2. If alternatively whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery the double amount of the earnest money in view of the agreement to sell dated 28.5.2003? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in view of P.O. No.1 of the written statement? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Relief.” Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide its RSA No. 2005 of 2011 (O&M) -3- judgment and decree dated 8.10.2009, declined the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell in question to the plaintiff. However, the decree for recovery of ` 2,60,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization, was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld, in appeal filed by the defendants, by the District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 9.2.2011. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiff had not come to the court with clean hands. In fact, the appellants owed only ` 1,50,000/- to the plaintiff. Various documents had been prepared by the plaintiff showing different loan amounts. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on “Arun Khanna and another versus Rajeev Gupta and others, 2006(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 563”, wherein it was held that where the vital documents had been deliberately withheld by a party then no relief could be granted to the said party. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance basing his claim on agreement to sell dated 28.5.2003. In order to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell in question, plaintiff examined scribe Rajinder Kalra as PW-2 and attesting witness Sawaran Singh as PW-3. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-4. The said witnesses deposed qua the due execution of the agreement to sell in question. The defendants failed to establish that the agreement to sell in question had not RSA No. 2005 of 2011 (O&M) -4- been executed by them or was a result of fraud. In order to rebut the evidence, led by the plaintiff, defendants proved on record documents Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-5 to show that the plaintiff was in the habit of getting the said documents executed to secure the payments made to various persons. Relying upon the said documents Ex. D-1 to Ex.D-3. Taking in to account the said documents, the courts below held that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell in question and was only entitled to recover the earnest money as the agreement to sell in question stood duly proved to have been executed between the parties. The said finding of the courts below call for no interference. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants fails to advance the case of the appellants as it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 05, 2011 Gurpreet