RSA No.3710 of 2009 (O&M) -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3710 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 07, 2010. Hardev Singh ...Appellant(s) v. Mukhtiar Singh ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri R.S. Modi, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.10.2000 executed between the parties, filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed. As per the averments made in the suit, the appellant/defendant was owner in possession of the suit property and he agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff/respondent for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- and executed an agreement and received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff/respondent as part payment. The balance sale price of Rs.25,000/- was to be paid by the plaintiff/respondent to the appellant/defendant at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It was further agreed that the sale deed was to be executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent on or before 20.4.2001. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was and is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the defendant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, hence this suit. Upon notice, the appellant appeared and contested the suit by RSA No.3710 of 2009 (O&M) -: 2 :- filing written statement raising certain legal objections. On merits, the appellant denied the execution of the agreement to sell and also denied receipt of Rs.1 lacs as earnest money from the plaintiff/respondent and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Both the courts below, on appreciation of evidence, found that the appellant executed an agreement of sale dated 20.10.2000 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and received a sum of Rs.1 lacs from him as earnest money and decreed the suit. Challenging the aforesaid judgment and decrees before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the execution of the agreement to sell in question is an outcome of fraud and is shrouded by suspicious circumstances and it was incumbent upon the plaintiff/respondent to prove that the same was genuinely executed but the respondent has failed to prove the same, therefore, the questions of law as enumerated in the Grounds of Appeal arise in this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgment and decrees. However, I find no merit in the argument raised before this Court. Both the courts below, on appreciation of evidence, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant executed the agreement in question. It may also be seen that despite the fact that the appellant denied the execution of the agreement in question, yet he failed to prove this assertion as the appellant has failed to produce any evidence on the point of execution of the document in rebuttal to the evidence produced by the plaintiff/respondent. The appellant has though denied the execution of agreement in question yet he has not dared to examine any document expert to prove that the thumb impressions on the agreement are not those of him. It is useful to refer to the findings of the lower appellate court which read as follows:- “In order to prove the due execution of the agreement dated 20.10.2000 Ex.P1, the respondent/plaintiff made his own statement as PW-1. His version has been corroborated by PW-3 Harnek Singh, PW-4 Satish RSA No.3710 of 2009 (O&M) -: 3 :- Kansal, Advocate and PW-6 Karam Singh, PW-6 Karan singh is the marginal witness of the agreement in question. The agreement in question was got dictated by PW-4 Satish Kansal, Advocate who has stated that the parties as well as the witnesses thumb marked the agreement in his presence. PW-3 Harnek Singh is also marginal witness of the agreement. His cross-examination was deferred but later on he could not appear due to his death. Even if his evidence is excluded, the evidence produced by the respondent/plaintiff is sufficient to prove that the agreement in question was duly executed by the defendant/appellant. The agreement in question purport to bear the thumb impressions of the defendant/appellant and he has not dared to examine any Document Expert to prove that the thumb impressions are not those of him. The only contentions raised by the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant were with regard to the discrepancies regarding time of affidavit at Sangrur and that there is no explanation as to why the parties got the agreement in question scribed at Sangrur when the sale deeds are registered with the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Dirba but the said discrepancies are minor and same are insignificant. The fact that the agreement was got scribed at Sangrur instead of Dirba by itself is not such a suspicious circumstances on the basis of which the agreement may be discarded.” No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. January 07, 2010. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge