RSA No.635 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 635 of 2010 Date of decision: 02.05.2011 Atma Singh ......Appellant Versus Ajaib Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.K.Chawla,Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Surinder Garg,Advocate for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 11.12.2004. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs for a consideration of ` 47,000/-. The agreement qua sale was reduced into writing. ` 10,000/- were paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant towards earnest money at the time of the execution of the agreement to sell. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 20.1.2005. Plaintiffs had always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Defendant, in his written statement, denied the execution of RSA No.635 of 2010 2 the agreement to sell in question as well as the receipt of earnest money. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession through specific performance of the agreement dated 11.12.2004 as alleged?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.47000/- alongwith interest, as alleged?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?OPP 4.Relief” The Civil Judge, Junior Division decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance of an agreement to sell in question vide judgment and decree dated 24.1.2007. The appeal filed by the defendant against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.2007. Hence, the present appeal by defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance basing their claim on agreement to sell dated 11.12.2004 Exhibit P1. In order to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell, plaintiffs examined PW1 Jaskaran Singh and PW2 Jugraj Singh, attesting witnesses to the agreement to sell. Plaintiffs also examined PW3 Rajinder Kumar, stamp vendor. PW4- Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate deposed that the RSA No.635 of 2010 3 agreement to sell in question had been typed on his dictation at the instance of the defendant. Thus, the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs proved the due execution of the agreement to sell in question. Plaintiffs, in order to establish that they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, have proved on record affidavit, Exhibit P5 executed by plaintiff- Ajaib Singh, PW6 Mangu Bansal, Clerk of the Sub Registrar, thus, proved the execution of the affidavit, Exhibit P5, by plaintiff-Ajaib Singh. Defendant, on the other hand, had failed to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiffs. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the agreement to sell in question was duly executed between the parties and plaintiffs had always remained ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Admittedly, now the sale deed has been executed in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of the decision given by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( SABINA ) JUDGE May 02, 2011 arya