R.S.A.No. 2391 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2391 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.10.2009 Ram Ditta ......Appellant Versus Urmila Devi .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. ADS Ghuman, Advocate for Mr.Mandeep S.Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Urmila Devi filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.4.2001, which was decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 13.8.2005. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the District Judge, Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 21.1.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. R.S.A.No. 2391 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. The plaintiff Urmila filed this suit on the averments that Ram Ditta was owner of 16 kanals 0 marla of agricultural land which he agreed to sell vide agreement dated 7.4.2001 for consideration at the rate of Rs.two lacs per acre. He had received Rs.2,46,000/- as earnest money and executed a receipt in token thereof on 7.4.2001 itself. The target date for registration of the sale deed was 6.10.2002. However, 6.10.2002 and 7.10.2002 were holidays and so the plaintiff had gone to the office of Sub-Registrar on 8.10.2002, but the defendant had not turned up. The plaintiff got her presence marked before the Sub-Registrar. Thereafter plaintiff approached the defendant personally for getting the sale deed executed in her favour. But he refused to do so. The plaintiff asserted that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and is still ready and willing. So she prayed for a decree for specific performance of the said agreement to sell dated 7.4.2001. 3. The defendant in his written statement pleaded that the agreement in question was a result of fraud and mis-representation. He never intended to alienate that suit land by way of sale etc. The agreement R.S.A.No. 2391 of 2008 (O&M) 3 was bogus and sham document and without consideration. The defendant never executed the said agreement nor he put his thumb impression or signed the same. It was never written in his presence nor read over to him. The defendant is a close relative of the plaintiff and under the garb of that relationship. The plaintiff might have obtained the thumb impressions or signatures of the defendant on some blank papers by mis-representation and fraudulently. The defendant denied that he had received any earnest amount from the plaintiff or executed any receipt or to have delivered the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. So he prayed for dismissal of the suit.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant executed an agreement to sell dated 7.4.2001 regarding suit land mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff paid the earnest money of Rs.2,46,000/- vide receipt dated 7.4.2001? OPP 3. Whether the sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered on or before 6.10.2002 in favour of plaintiff? OPP R.S.A.No. 2391 of 2008 (O&M) 4 4. Whether the plaintiff is still ready and willing to perform the agreement of her part and is ready to pay the balance sale consideration of agreement to defendant? OPP 5. If issues No.1 to 4 are proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for recovery of Rs.4,92,000/- at the rate of 18% interest per annum in case a decree for specific performance is not decreed in favour of the plaintiff? OPP 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 9. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 10. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 12 of Specific Relief Act? OPD 11. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the Court? OPD 12. Whether the plaintiff has not come with clean hands? OPD R.S.A.No. 2391 of 2008 (O&M) 5 13. Whether the agreement to sell is a result of fraud and misrepresentation? OPP 14. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try and present suit? OPD 15. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not property valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 16. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.4.2001. In order to prove her case, plaintiff examined PW-3 Vijay Kumar Kohli, attesting witness of the agreement to sell. The said witness proved the due execution of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff also examined PW-4 Dr.Atul Kumar Singla, handwriting expert, who compared the disputed thumb impressions of the defendant on agreement to sell Ex.P-1 and receipt Ex.P-2. As per the said witness, the thumb impressions on Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 matched with the standard thumb impressions of the defendant. Petitioner also successfully proved that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and that she had remained present in the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Kaithal on 8.10.2002 as 6.10.2002 and 7.10.2002 were holidays. The defendant, on the other hand, failed to rebut the evidence led by R.S.A.No. 2391 of 2008 (O&M) 6 the plaintiff with regard to the execution of the agreement to sell in question. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 14, 2009 anita