414 1 4 Reclular Second Appeal No51 of 2009 l0 SMl 4 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decisionl March 2011 1 Reclular Second Apoeal No51 of 2009 l08M1 r 0 0 Jarnail Kaur 4ppellant I 0 Versus I Kulwinder Singh eaRespondent Z CORAM HONBLE MR1USTICE MOHINDER PAL 1 VVhetherReportersof Iocal papers may be allowed to see I the judgment7 2 To be referred to the Reportersor not Z 3e Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest7 00 Presentl Mr Vijay Lath Advocate for the appellant 7 Z Om MOHINDER PAL O This is defendants second appeal against whom decree for possession of the suit Iand by way of specific performanceof the agreement to sell dated 2402000 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff has been passed by both the Courts below in a suit filed by the piaintiffrespondentagainst the defendantappellant for possession of the suit Iand by way of specific performanceof the said agreement to sell Gupta Suruchi 2012.11.08 14: 47 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 415 2 0 e Retlular Second Appeal Noel5l of 2009 QS34 1 e After hearing the Iearned counsei for the appellant and going thrOU9hthe records of the case I do not see any rnerit in this appeal Learned counsel for the during the Course of arguments could not persuade me by referringto any material on record to take a dierent View thanthe one taken by both the Courts below No illegalityof perversitycouid be pointed out by the Iearned counsel for the in the concurrent findingsof fact 0 recorded by both the Courts below giving rise to any substantial 0 questionof Iaw in this appeal 0 The defendant being owner in possession of the suit Iand I measuring 80 Kanals 1 Marla agreedto sell the same at the rate of I Rs850001 per acre to the vide agreement to z sale dated 24102000 Exhibit P At the time of execution of the agreement a Sum of Rse5600001 had been received bY the r from the I as earnest money and the remaining sale consideration was to be paid at the time of Z execution of the sale deed which was stipulated to be executed on 03 3052001 The plaintiffhad been readyand willingto perform his part of 3 the agreement but it was the defendant who failed to execute the sale Z deed as per the said agreementto sell Exhibit P lle In fact filingof the suit itself makes it clear that the plaintiffwas ready and willingto performhispartof the agreement The agreement to sell Exhibit P lI was scribed on three StamPPaPers of Rs3001each stamp paper of the denominationof Rs10019 and thumb impressionof the appellant exists on each a nd every page of the said agreement to sell Besides each page of the agreementis signed by Nirmal Singh son of appellantJarnaii Kaure Thus taking her son with her by the appellantat the time of executingthe Gupta Suruchi 2012.11.08 14: 47 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 416 3 Reqular Second Appeal No5l of 2009 108M 9 agreementto sell dated 24102000 Ieads to the inference that the agreement to sell in question iS a genuineone The execution of the agreementto Sell has been dulyproved on record by the plaintiff by producingPaWe2RoopChand who had scribed the same and PW l Sewa Singh who had attested the said agreement The Kulwinder Singh IVelJ corroborated all the averments made in the plaint 1 The had claimed that the plaintiff 0 reSPOndenthad made her to sjgn certain blank papers which were Iater 0 on converted into the present agreementto sell by the plaintiff Had it I been so the defendant would not have failed to approach the poiice I authoritiesto Iaunch criminal action against the plaintiff However there is Z no evidence on record to show that the pellanthad taken any such step Exceptthe bald statement of defendant Jarnail Kaur 0eW tr there is nothingon record to substantiate the plea of fraud and I fabrication of the agreementto sell in question taken by the defendant Z Agreementto sell Exhibit P lI Jarnail Kaur DW lI contains the O photograph of the defendant which she identified while deposing In Court Besides the agreement bears the signaturesof Nirmal Singh Z 2 whO as stated above is the son of the appeliant The execution of the agreementto sell in the presence of the son of the plaintiff proves that no fraud had been committed by the plaintiff upon the defendant Under the circumstances both the Courts below were justified Itl acceptingthe claim of the and decreeinghis suit vide impugned judgments and decrees No fault can be found with the reasoning adopted by the Coutts beiow in decidingthe instant cause in favourof the plaintif Gupta Suruchi 2012.11.08 14: 47 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 417 4 1 Reqular Second Aooe151 of 2009 10 8 14 1 In view of the factual position discussed above I do not find any illegality or perversityIll the findingsof fact recorded by both the Cou rts below which may give rise to any substantialquestionof Iaw Resultantlythis appealIS herebydismissed beingwithout any merit Datedl March 2011 MOHINDER PALI 1 ak JUDGE m tr D 0 ji I 8rlz 0 004111 I vIl b 9 Z l I r Z 01 17 Z Gupta Suruchi 2012.11.08 14: 47 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document