RSA No.3124 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3124 of 2004 Date of decision: 25.9.2008 Surjit Singh …… Appellant versus Nanak Singh …….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * * Present: Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.S. Gandhi, Advocate with Mr. R.P.Daaria, Advocate for the respondent. * * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . 1. The facts of the case are that Nanak Singh-respondent filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10.5.1995 against the present appellant. It was pleaded that by said agreement, the appellant had agreed to sell land measuring 15 kanals 18 marlas etc. for a sum of Rs.3,97,500/-. A sum of Rs.2.60 lacs was paid as earnest money and the remaining amount was payable at the time of execution/registration of the sale deed. The sale deed was executable on 9.5.1998. It was further stated that it was the plaintiff who always remained ready and willing to perform his own part of the contract, but the defendant breached the terms and conditions thereof. On the final refusal of the defendant to execute and get registered the sale deed, left with no alternative, a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.5.1995, was filed. In the alternative, relief for recovery of Rs.3,98,500/- with interest was also sought. Hence, the suit. 2. The suit was contested by the appellant by filing a detailed RSA No.3124 of 2004 2 written statement. It was alleged that the agreement to sell was a forged document. The son of the appellant was to be sent abroad for which the signatures of the appellant were obtained on blank papers. It was denied that agreement to sell dated 10.5.1995, was executed by the defendant, in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the land in suit. It was also denied if any earnest money was received by the defendant from the plaintiff. It was further stated that since the agreement to sell the land in dispute was not executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, the question of readiness and willingness of the latter to perform his part of the contract, did not arise at all. The remaining averments were denied being wrong 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant vide agreement of sale dated 10.5.1995 agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.2 lacs per Killa and received Rs.2,60,000/- as is present from the latter? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff always remained ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of agreement of sale dated 10.5.1995? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10.5.1995? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit land? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.3,97,500/- being refund of interest and damages from the defendant in the alternative? OPP RSA No.3124 of 2004 3 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 7. Relief.” 4. Learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 6.6.2000. The appellant then filed an appeal. The learned Lower Appellate Court upheld the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 19.8.2003. Hence, the present appeal was filed. 5. At the motion stage on 19.8.2004, counsel for the appellant contended that is was specific case of the defendant in the written statement itself that his signatures were obtained on blank paper by the plaintiff at the time when the plaintiff agreed to send the son of the defendant abroad for a total consideration of Rs.2,60,000/-. The plaintiff has been cross-examined in respect of such transaction but the Courts below have not dealt with this aspect at all. 6. On the basis of the above contention this Court admitted the appeal for consideration on the following substantial questions of law i) Whether the document agreement to sell (Ex.P1) is forged and fabricated one, when the marginal witness Ujjagar Singh (PW-3) has himself stated that the documents which he had signed was hand written by the deed writer but the agreement in question is otherwise? ii) Whether the evidence on the record has been misread or misinterpreted? 7. In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the statement of PW3 Ujjagar Singh which is to the following effect:- “I had put my signatures by taking the pen from RSA No.3124 of 2004 4 the deed writer. The deed writer had written the agreement in his hand and the transaction of money was made according to that.” On the basis of above statement he has argued that according to PW3 witness of the plaintiff himself, the agreement Ex.P1 was a hand written document whereas Pawan Kumar, Deed Writer who appeared as PW-1 deposed that the agreement to sell dated 10.5.1995 was typed by him at the instance of the respondent and he has further stated that after typing the agreement he had read over and explained the contents thereof to the parties. Counsel has further stated that agreement Ex.P1 placed on record of the case is a typed document. Thus, in view of the above facts established on record, it is proved that the agreement to sell Ex.P1 is forged and fabricated document and thus, the findings of the Courts below are perverse and are liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has argued that the question whether agreement to sell is a forged and fabricated document is a question of fact and the same has been held to be duly executed by the Courts below on appreciation of evidence and even if two views are possible on reappreciation of evidence, this Court will not interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below as substantial question of law arises in the appeal. Learned counsel has also pointed out that even the defendant-appellant had admitted his signatures on Ex.P1 though he stated that the same were obtained on blank papers. Once the defendant admitted the signatures on Ex.P1 the onus was upon him to prove that the same were taken on blank papers, which he has miserably failed to prove. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below are correct and in accordance with law. RSA No.3124 of 2004 5 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The only controversy between the parties in the present appeal is whether agreement to sell Ex.P1 is a forged and fabricated document. 11. It is settled proposition of law that if a person admits his signatures on some document then the onus shifts on the person who admitted his signatures on a document to prove that it was obtained on blank papers or was taken under undue influence or under pressure. In the case in hand, it is the admitted case of the appellant that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. The plea of the appellant is that he wanted to send his son to Germany through plaintiff who is a travel agent and the latter he agreed to send his son abroad for a total consideration of Rs.2,60,000/- and it was settled that this amount will be paid by the appellant to the plaintiff after his son reaches Germany and as security the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendant on blank papers. Since the plaintiff failed to send the son of the appellant to Germany, there was no agreement between the parties. However, there is no evidence placed on record by the appellant to prove his plea except his simple denial to the effect that no agreement was executed between the parties. No evidence has been brought on record by the appellant. 12. The Lower Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the execution of agreement Ex.P1 has been duly proved from the statements of PW-1 Pawan Kumar,Deed Writer and PW-3 Ujjagar Singh, attesting witness. The Lower Appellate Court has also mentioned in the judgment that these witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined but nothing could be got elicited from them which would discredit their evidence. The plea of the appellant that the marginal witness has stated that agreement P-1 was handwritten whereas on record, a typed document has been proved as RSA No.3124 of 2004 6 PW-1 and therefore, the same should have been discarded by the Courts below, is of no consequence in view of the fact that the defendant admitted his signatures on Ex.P1 produced in Court i.e. typed agreement Ex.P1 though he stated that the same were obtained when it was blank i.e. the plea, which he could not prove in support of his case. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that from the gap between the signatures and writing made, it is crystal clear that signatures of the defendant were obtained on blank stamp papers and later on it was typed and converted into agreement to sell. I have also perused the agreement to sell Ex.P1. There is nothing unusual in the writing of the said document and seems to be typed by the Deed Writer in the ordinary course of his profession. The argument of the learned counsel is without any substance. It may be noted here that if the statement of Ujjagar Singh PW3 is read as a whole, he has clearly stated that Pawan Kumar, Deed Writer had scribed Ex.P1. The agreement to sell Ex.P1 was executed on 10.5.1995 whereas the statement of Ujjagar Singh, PW-3 who is aged about 84 years was recorded in the Court after a lapse of many years and therefore, such kind of minor discrepancies are bound to occur and the same is not significant in view of the fact that the appellant himself has admitted his signatures on Ex.P1. 13. No other point has been urged. 14. I find no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. 15. Dismissed. September 25, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE RSA No.3124 of 2004 7 RSA No.3124 of 2004 8