RSA No. 2118 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2118 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.4.2011. Amarjit Singh .......Appellant Vs. Manjit Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for Mr. S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. K.K.Kahlon, Advocate for the respondent. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28.5.1999. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that defendant was owner of the suit property and had agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff on 28.5.1999. At the time of execution of agreement to sell in question, `. 1,00,000/- were paid towards earnest money by the plaintiff to the defendant. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 29.11.1999 and thereafter the date for execution of the sale deed was extended to 30.4.2000. The plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar on 2.5.2000 along with balance sale consideration but the RSA No. 2118 of 2009 -2- defendant failed to appear to perform his part of the contract. 30.4.2000 was Sunday and 1.5.2000 was declared a holiday being Labour Day. Defendant, in his written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that in fact the defendant had borrowed a sum of `. 25,000/- from the plaintiff in May 1999. Defendant had returned the said amount along with interest. At the time of advancing the loan, plaintiff had obtained the signatures and thumb impressions of defendant on some blank papers. The agreement to sell in question might have been fabricated on the said papers. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant executed an agreement to sell dated 28.5.1999 in favour of plaintiff, as claimed? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff remained ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession of suit property, by way of specific performance? OPP 4. Whether in the alternative, plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount, as claimed? OPP 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is barred by his act and conduct, from filing the present suit? OPD RSA No. 2118 of 2009 -3- 8. Whether the agreement dated 28.5.99 is a forged and fabricated and without consideration?OPD 9. Relief.” Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2006, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal, filed by the defendant, by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 18.2.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, 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 28.5.1999. 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 Deed Writer Taranjit Singh as PW-2. Plaintiff also examined Balbir Singh attesting witness as PW-3. The said witnesses proved the due execution of the agreement to sell in question. Defendant, on the other hand, however, failed to establish his plea that he had taken a loan of ` 25,000/- from the plaintiff and had returned the same along with interest. Defendant also further failed to establish that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers. The attesting witness as well as scribe of the agreement to sell in question, examined by the plaintiff, have duly established the execution of the agreement to sell in question and payment of earnest money to the tune of ` 1,00,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant. In order to establish that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his RSA No. 2118 of 2009 -4- part of the contract, the plaintiff proved on record his affidavit (Ex. P-4). No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 28, 2011 Gurpreet