R.S.A.No. 1756 of 2011(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1756 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 20.4.2011 Jarnail Singh ......Appellant Versus Krishan Singh @ Kala and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Rangi, Advocate for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of agreement to sell dated 3.2.2006. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that on 3.2.2006, defendant No.1 had entered into an agreement to sell the property in question to the plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of defendants No. 2 to 6. Defendant No.1 had executed the agreement to sell in question in favour of the plaintiff and had received ` 4,00,000/- from the plaintiff towards earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 25.7.2006. On the said date, the R.S.A.No. 1756 of 2011(O&M) 2 plaintiff had remained present in the office of Sub Registrar along with the balance sale consideration but the defendants had failed to appear to perform their part of the contract. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the agreement to sell in question was a forged and a fabricated document. The plaintiff had asked the answering defendant to lease out his property to him. The document got executed from defendant No.1 was not read over to him by the deed writer. The answering defendant was owner to the extent of 2 ½ kanals out of the suit property. Defendants No.2 to 6, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant No.1 executed an agreement in question and he was having authority to do so on behalf of defendant No.2 to 6? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of ` 8 lacs as claimed from the defendants and which of the defendants is liable to pay ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest, if so at what rate ? OPP 4.Whether the agreement in question is forged, fabricated and result of fraud ? OPD (1) 5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary R.S.A.No. 1756 of 2011(O&M) 3 parties? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit against the defendants No.2 to 6 ? OPD (2 to 6) ? OPD 7. Whether suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintinable ? OPD( 2 to 6) 8. Relief.” The Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 4.3.2010. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was partly allowed vide judgment and decree dated 9.12.2010 passed by the District Judge. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled for the recovery of ` 4,00,000/-along with interest @ 12% from defendant No.1. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.1. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery basing his claim on agreement to sell dated 3.2.2006. In order to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell, the plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box and examined attesting witnesses to the agreement to sell PW-2 Mewa Singh and PW-3 Lachhman Dass, deed writer. The said witnesses deposed qua due execution of the agreement to sell in question. In order to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 examined Baldev Singh as DW-2 and Malkiat Singh as DW-3. Defendant No.1 himself appeared in the witness box as R.S.A.No. 1756 of 2011(O&M) 4 DW-1. It is a common saying that men may tell lies but documents do not. A perusal of the copy of agreement to sell in question dated 3.2.2006 (shown during the course of arguments) shows that the same is duly signed by the appellant. It has been duly mentioned in the agreement to sell that ` 4,00,000/- had been received by defendant No.1 Jarnail Singh from the plaintiff. Once the agreement to sell in question is proved to have been signed by defendant No.1, a presumption arises that the same has been duly executed by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has, however, failed to rebut the said presumption and has failed to establish that the agreement to sell in question was a forged and a fabricated document. The attesting witness to the agreement to sell in question, examined by the plaintiff, has supported the case of the plaintiff, whereas, the attesting witnesses to the agreement to sell, examined by defendant No.1, have supported the case of the defendant. Thus, the said witnesses have supported the party who had examined them. In these circumstances, it would be safe to rely on the contents of the agreement to sell in question which has been duly proved to have been executed by defendant No.1. The attesting witnesses examined by the appellant have also admitted their signatures on the agreement to sell in question. In these circumstances, the finding of fact arrived at by the learned first Appellate Court to the effect that the agreement to sell in question was duly executed by defendant No.1 cannot be interfered with. No substantial question of law arises in this regular R.S.A.No. 1756 of 2011(O&M) 5 second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 20, 2011 anita