RSA No. 1268 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1268 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.03.2011. Surender Singh @ Lattu .......Appellant Vs. Raj Kumar ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.7.2000. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the defendant was owner in possession of the suit land. Defendant had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff on 12.7.2000 @ ` 1,20,000/- per acre. The agreement to sell was reduced into writing. ` 60,000/- were received by the defendant from the plaintiff towards earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on 11.7.2001, after receipt of balance sale consideration. The possession of the suit land was also to be delivered to the plaintiff at the time of registration of the sale deed. On 11.7.2001, plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar along with balance sale consideration and other RSA No. 1268 of 2011 (O&M) -2- necessary expenses for registration of the sale deed but the defendant had failed to appear to perform his part of the contract. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant, in his written statement, averred that he was selling his agricultural produce through Bhagwan Dass Raj Kumar commission agency firm. He used to borrow money from the said firm and returned the same in the shape of agricultural produce with interest. As per the entries, made by the firm, ` 1,29,000/- were outstanding against the defendant. However, defendant had sold his agricultural produce worth ` 1,11,000/- to the plaintiff firm and now only a sum of ` 18,000/- were outstanding against the defendant. The signatures of the defendant had been obtained on some blank stamp papers for the purpose of security. The alleged agreement to sell in question was a fabricated document. Defendant had never executed the agreement to sell in question. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 12.7.2000 and received a sum of Rs. 60,000/-, as earnest money? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Relief.” RSA No. 1268 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Vide judgment and decree dated 19.9.2007, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell in question. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 3.4.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.7.2000. In order to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell in question, plaintiff examined PW-1 Rajesh Batra, Deed Writer who had scribed the agreement to sell in question. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and examined PW-3 Uttam Chand and PW-4 Gurnam Chand, who were the attesting witnesses to the agreement to sell in question. The said witnesses have proved the due execution of the agreement to sell in question. The appellant, however, failed to establish that the agreement to sell in question was not signed by him or that it had been fabricated on a paper which already had the signatures of the defendant, as pleaded by him. It has further been noticed by the learned Additional District Judge that on the agreement to sell (Ex. P-1), the appellant had written in his own hand that he had received ` 60,000/- towards the earnest money from the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be decreed. RSA No. 1268 of 2011 (O&M) -4- No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 16, 2011 Gurpreet