R.S.A.No. 3071 of 2009(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3071 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:August 20, 2009 Rajinder Singh ---Appellant versus Randhir Singh ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. G.S.Chahal,Advocate, for the appellant *** SABINA J. Plaintiff – Randhir Singh filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance. Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Malerkotla vide judgment and decree dated 13.9.2006 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge,Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 8.5.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that R.S.A.No. 3071 of 2009(O&M) {2} respondent/plaintiff brought a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10.2.2001 on the allegations that defendant/appellant agreed to sell the land in dispute to him @ Rs. 42,000/- per Bigha Kham. At the time of execution of agreement, the defendant/appellant had received Rs. 2,00,000/- as earnest money from the respondent/plaintiff and agreed to execute the sale-deed on or before 01.10.2001. The balance sale consideration was to be paid to the defendant/appellant at the time of execution f sale deed. The possession of land was also to be delivered by the defendant/appellant to the respondent/plaintiff at the time of execution of sale deed. The terms and conditions of agreement were reduced into writing on that every day. The respondents/plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and to get the sale-deed executed by making the payment of balance sale consideration. Vide writing dated 30.9.2001, the date for execution of sale- deed was extended from 01.10.2001 to 22.4.2003 and endorsement in this regard was made on the last page of agreement dated 10.2.2001 on 30.9.2001 at the time of execution of said writing/endorsement. The respondent/plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- out of balance sale consideration to the defendant/appellant on 30.9.2001. the respondent/plaintiff made repeated requests to the defendant/appellant to execute the sale-deed regarding land in dispute in his favour by receipt of balance sale consideration R.S.A.No. 3071 of 2009(O&M) {3} but the defendant/appellant always avoided the execution of sale-deed on one pretext or the other. On 8.4.2003, the respondent/plaintiff had got served a notice through Sh. Satish Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate, Malerkotla on the defendant/appellant thereby calling upon him to execute the sale-deed in terms of agreement in question on 22.4.2003. On 22.4.2003, the respondent/plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Malerkotla with requisite amount for payment of balance sale consideration and incurring expenses for execution and registration of sale-deed but the defendant did not turn up. Ultimately, the plaintiff/respondent got his presence marked by getting an affidavit attested from Sub Registrar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Malerkotla. The respondent/plaintiff is still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The repeated requests were made to the defendant/appellant by the plaintiff/respondent to execute the sale-deed as per the agreement in question but to no effect. Hence, this suit. 3. Pursuant to the receipt of notice of the suit, the defendant/appellant appeared and filed written statement, contesting the suit inter alia on the allegations that he never agreed to sell the land in dispute to the respondent/plaintiff @ Rs. 42,000/- per Bigha Kham. He has denied the execution of agreement in question. The market rate of the land in question is more than Rs. 1,00,000/- per Bigha and there was no question of agreeing to sell the land @ Rs. 42,000/- per Bigha. R.S.A.No. 3071 of 2009(O&M) {4} He further pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff is Director of the firm named and style as Anmol (India) Pvt. Ltd., Circular road, Kapurthala having its Head Office at Pub Saranin, Guwahati and M/s Cheema Enterprises which is engaged in supply of coal on commission basis. M/s Syan Gram Udyog Samiti, BKO village Jabbo Majra was in need of coal for running their brick-kiln. Amrik Singh s/o Karnail Singh resident of village Moolabadha, Tehsil Malerkotla is the Secretary of said Samiti, Kewal Singh S/o Mohinder Singh resident of Jabbo Majra, Tehsil Malerkotla is the Chairman of said Samiti and Amarjit Singh s/o Santokh Singh resident of Jabbo Majra is the vice President of the said Samiti. The defendant/appellant and his father Amarjit Singh introduced the office bearers of the said Samiti to the respondent/plaintiff. The said Samiti had been purchasing coal from the firm of respondent/plaintiff. Since the said Samiti owed some amount to the firm of respondent/plaintiff, he started pressurizing the defendant/appellant and his father to prevail upon the office bearers of the said society to make the payment of said amount the respondent/plaintiff got detained the defendant/appellant and his father in P.S.Amargarh. They were pressurized to execute the agreements regarding sale of their land in favour of the respondent/plaintiff as security for payment of the amount in question. They were assured that the agreements will be cancelled/returned to them as and when accounts were settled by the said Samiti. The agreements of sale were executed by R.S.A.No. 3071 of 2009(O&M) {5} the defendant/appellant and his father under the pressure of police. The defendant/appellant and his father were brought to the Court Complex, Malerkotla and agreements were got executed from them. On the same day, the father of defendant/appellant was made to execute an agreement for sale of his land measuring 3 bighas 5 biswas. Both the agreements were without consideration, result of coercion and pressure. Therefore, the agreements are not enforceable. The defendant/appellant has also denied the execution of writing dated 30.9.2001 regarding extension of time and receipt of Rs. 50,000/- at that time. The remaining allegations of the plaint were also denied by the defendant/appellant. The preliminary objections regarding maintainability of suit, cause of action, valuation of suit, suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties etc. were also raised.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the defendant has entered into agreement to sell dated 10.2.2001 in favour of plaintiff? OPP (2)Whether the plaintiff always is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?OPP (3)Whether in the alternative, plaintiff is entitled to recover of Rs. 2,78,620?- OPP (4)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injuction as prayed for?OPP (5)Whether suit is maintainable? OPD R.S.A.No. 3071 of 2009(O&M) {6} (6)Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD (7)Whether the agreement to sell is without consideration, result of coercion and pressure? OPD (8)Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? If so its effect? OPD (9)Relief After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.2.2001(Ex. P-1). In order to prove his case, plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box and examined PW2 Sukhdev Singh, attesting witness to the agreement to sell, in question and PW-3 Sham Lal Gupta, Deed Writer. The said witnesses had duly proved the execution of the agreement to sell (Ex. P-1) Defendant, on the other hand, took up the plea that the agreement to sell, in question, had been got signed from him under police pressure and in fact, no consideration had passed at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. Defendant had although examined DW- 1 Randhir Singh in support of his case, but the courts below have rightly held that the pleas raised by the appellant did not inspire confidence. Appellant had failed to move any complaint to higher police officials regarding the factum of execution of agreement to sell, in question, under police pressure. It appears that the said plea has been taken by the appellant to wriggle out of the agreement to sell. The execution of agreement to sell, in question, raises a presumption that consideration had passed between the parties. Moreso, the attesting witness to the agreement R.S.A.No. 3071 of 2009(O&M) {7} to sell, in question has categorically proved the due execution of the agreement to sell and passing of the consideration. In order to establish that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, plaintiff had led evidence to the effect that he had remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar, Malerkotala along with balance sale consideration but the appellant had failed to come present to perform his part of the contract. In this regard, plaintiff proved on record his affidavit Ex. P-7. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 20, 2009 PARAMJIT