Regular Second Appeal No. 91 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 91 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : January 12, 2011 Balwinder Singh ....Appellant versus Pardeep Kumar ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 320.C of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. RSA No. 91 of 2011 Defendant Balwinder Singh having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below has come up by way of instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Pardeep Kumar filed suit against defendant-appellant for possession of suit land measuring 6 kanals 14 marlas by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 6.6.2000 and in the alternative for recovery of ` 1,60,000/-. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff at the rate of ` Regular Second Appeal No. 91 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 1,50,000/- per acre i.e. for consideration of ` 1,25,660/- and received ` 80,000/- as earnest money and executed aforesaid agreement. Sale deed was to be executed on 30.5.2002. On the said date, the plaintiff went to the office of Sub Registrar with requisite money to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement but the defendant did not turn up and committed breach of the agreement. It was not day fixed for registration of documents and therefore, Sub Registrar was not available. Plaintiff sent telegram in the evening to Sub Registrar. Next day i.e. on 31.5.2000, the plaintiff again went to the office of Sub Registrar to get the sale deed executed but the defendant did not turn up. The plaintiff got his presence marked by making application. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendant committed breach thereof, necessitating the filing of the suit. The defendant broadly controverted the plaint allegations. He denied having executed the impugned agreement. The agreement was pleaded to be forged and fabricated and without consideration. It was alleged that defendant and his father used to sell their crop at the shop of M/s Sant Ram Charan Dass, Commission Agents, Malout. They got signatures of defendant and his father on blank pronotes and receipts, stamp papers and also on plain papers as security. Plaintiff is brother of Charan Dass and son of Sant Ram. About two years ago, defendant and his father stopped selling their produce at the said shop after clearing their account. However, the said Commission Agent did not return the blank documents/papers bearing signatures of defendant and his father and the impugned agreement has been manipulated on the said papers. Various Regular Second Appeal No. 91 of 2011 (O&M) -3- other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malout vide judgment and decree dated 4.8.2009 decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession of the suit land by specific performance of the agreement. First appeal preferred by defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 1.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Plaintiff-respondent has led sufficient evidence to prove his case. Plaintiff himself appeared in witness box and supported his version. Plaintiff also examined Darshan Singh PW2 an attesting witness of the agreement and Mohinder Pal PW3 who had typed the said agreement. Parmod Kumar PW4 is the other attesting witness of the agreement. All of them have supported the plaintiff's case. On the contrary, defendant himself appeared in the witness box and deposed according to his version. Evidence led by the plaintiff is very cogent and reliable. He has examined both the attesting witnesses of the agreement and also examined the typist who typed the agreement. The said evidence is not rebutted by the evidence of the defendant. On the contrary, in the written statement, the defendant impliedly admitted his signatures on the impugned agreement. The said circumstance further strengthens the plaintiff's case although plaintiff's evidence is also sufficient to prove his case. It is significant to notice that testimony of defendant is completely unreliable. In the witness box, he denied his signatures even on Regular Second Appeal No. 91 of 2011 (O&M) -4- his written statement and also on the affidavit of his examination-in-chief. Consequently, the testimony of defendant cannot be believed to hold that the impugned agreement has been forged and fabricated. It is also the defendant's version that he and his father had cleared the account of Commission Agent who had obtained their signatures on blank documents/papers. If it was so, the defendant and his father would have taken back the aforesaid documents/papers bearing their signatures from the Commission Agent while clearing the account of the Commission Agent. On the contrary, it has also come in evidence that defendant's father had also executed some sale deed in favour of the Commission Agent to clear its amount. Defendant's father would not have executed the sale deed if blank documents and papers bearing signatures of defendant and his father had not been returned by the Commission Agent. Thus, examined from any angle, defendant's version is completely unreliable. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that perusal of impugned agreement reveals that it was typed on stamp papers already bearing signatures of the defendant as space at the end of the agreement is narrow. The contention cannot be accepted. Perusal of photostat copy of the impugned agreement as shown by learned counsel for the appellant does not substantiate this contention. On the contrary, the agreement has been typed with uniform space as revealed by the photostat copy. There is concurrent finding by both the courts below in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The said finding is fully justified by evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not Regular Second Appeal No. 91 of 2011 (O&M) -5- shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this second appeal. There is no merit in the instant second appeal which is dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) January 12, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'