R. S. A. No. 5144 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 5144 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 07, 2011 Harjit Singh .... Appellant Vs. Natha Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. H. S. Bhullar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Hitesh Sood, Advocate for the caveator-respondent. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant Harjit Singh having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Natha Singh filed suit against appellant- defendant for possession of 11 kanals 09 marlas land being one-fifth share of 57 kanals 17 marlas land by specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 29.08.2005. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for ₹ 14,31,250/- (@ ₹ 10,00,000/- per acre) and R. S. A. No. 5144 of 2010 2 received ₹ 12,00,000/- as earnest money and executed the aforesaid agreement. Sale deed was agreed to be executed up to 08.12.2005. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the defendant failed to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement, necessitating the filing of the suit. The defendant inter alia pleaded that he never agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff nor executed impugned agreement, which is false, bogus and without consideration. The defendant never thumb marked or signed the impugned agreement. In fact, defendant had introduced the plaintiff and his son Bikramjit Singh to travel agents Harvinder Singh and Veer Inder Singh for settling plaintiff's son in foreign country. The plaintiff paid ₹ 7.80 lacs to the said agents in five instalments. Dispute arose between the agents and the plaintiff and his son. Plaintiff and his son purchased stamp papers of ₹ 50/- from Delhi and got the signatures of defendant on blank stamp papers forcibly. The plaintiff might have prepared the impugned agreement on the said papers. The defendant never received ₹ 12,00,000/- from the plaintiff. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran, vide judgment and decree dated 02.01.2009, decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional R. S. A. No. 5144 of 2010 3 District Judge, Tarn Taran vide judgment and decree dated 10.09.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Plaintiff has examined Jaswinder Singh (PW-1) and Piara Singh (PW-2) – both marginal witnesses of the impugned agreement. Both of them have stated according to plaintiff's version. Sulakhan Singh (PW-3) – Document Writer proved affidavit dated 08.12.2005 to depict readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed in terms of compromise. Parkash Singh (PW-4) – Sub Registrar/Executive Magistrate attested the aforesaid affidavit. The plaintiff himself stepped into the witness-box as PW-5 and stated according to his own version. On the other hand, defendant appeared as DW-1 and deposed according to his version. Nirmal Singh (DW-2) and defendant's brother Gurmit Singh (DW-3) also broadly supported the defendant's version. The plaintiff has led cogent evidence to prove his case. He has examined both attesting witnesses of the impugned agreement. Plaintiff has also depicted his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract because he attended the office of Sub Registrar on 08.12.2005 i.e. the date stipulated in the agreement for execution of the sale deed, to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement. The plaintiff also, R. S. A. No. 5144 of 2010 4 immediately thereafter, filed the instant suit on 24.12.2005. This evidence of the plaintiff is sufficient to prove his case. Added to it, the defendant has admitted his signatures on the impugned agreement. Consequently, the onus was very heavy on the defendant to displace the impugned agreement. However, the defendant has miserably failed to do so. Nirmal Singh (DW- 2) is a friend of the defendant. However, the defendant did not state that Nirmal Singh also accompanied him to Delhi, when defendant along with plaintiff went to Delhi to settle the dispute with the travel agents. So, presence of Nirmal Singh at that time in support of defendant's version is doubtful. Gurmit Singh (DW-3) is none else, but brother of defendant. Even Nirmal Singh (DW-2) being friend of defendant was favourably inclined in favour of the defendant. It is also worth mentioning that defendant alleged that his signatures on blank stamp papers had been obtained forcibly. If it was so, the defendant would have reported the matter to police or some other authority. However, the defendant never did so. It is unbelievable that in the presence of defendant's friend Nirmal Singh and brother Gurmit Singh, signatures of defendant were forcibly obtained on blank stamp papers. On the other hand, Nirmal Singh (DW-2) in his cross-examination stated that they had purchased the stamp papers of ₹ 50/-. This significant circumstance would show that the agreement was voluntarily executed by R. S. A. No. 5144 of 2010 5 the defendant. Gurmit Singh (DW-3) expressed ignorance, if the defendant had signed the impugned agreement to sell. Learned counsel for the appellant, relying on judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Suraibhan Kailash Chand and another vs. Hari Shanker Vashsist and another reported as AIR 1976 Delhi 70 contended that mere admission by defendant of his signatures on the impugned agreement does not amount to admission of execution of the agreement. There cannot be any quarrel with the legal proposition. However, in the instant case, the plaintiff has led positive evidence to prove due execution of the agreement by the defendant. As already noticed herein before, the plaintiff himself has stated about execution of the agreement by the defendant and has also examined both attesting witnesses of the impugned agreement to prove its due execution by the defendant. Admission by defendant of his signatures on the impugned agreement is only added and corroborative circumstance to prove due execution of the agreement by him. It is not the sole basis to hold the due execution of the agreement by him. There is other sufficient evidence to prove this fact. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the suit land is situated in District Tarn Taran and therefore, there is no reason why the agreement should have been executed at Delhi. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the parties were already present at R. S. A. No. 5144 of 2010 6 Delhi, when the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff and therefore, the impugned agreement was executed then and there at Delhi. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The impugned agreement, which has otherwise been duly proved by leading cogent and credible evidence, cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it was executed at Delhi. Moreover, no explanation was sought from the plaintiff in his cross-examination as to why the agreement was executed at Delhi and therefore, the defendant-appellant cannot derive any capital out of this circumstance. If the plaintiff had been cross-examined on this aspect, he could have better explained it. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below in favour of plaintiff-respondent. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. There has been no misreading or misappreciation of evidence by the courts below, which may require interference by this Court. The appeal is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. January 07, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE