R.S.A.No.2804 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2804 of 2009 Date of Decision : 05.08.2009 Mandeep Singh ...Appellant Versus Mohinder Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Vikas Mor, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.2 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for specific performance of agreement to sell executed by defendant No.1 in respect of his land measuring 2 Kanals 8 Marlas, was decreed. On 12.6.2001, defendant No.1 agreed to sale his aforesaid land at the rate of Rs.4 lac per acre to the plaintiff. Rs.40,000/- was paid as earnest money. Sometime later another sum of Rs.5000/- was paid. The balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed i.e. 30.1.2002. However, defendant No.1 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 27.12.2001. Thus, the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance of the agreement on 4.2.2002 with the averments that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but defendant No.1 clandestinely sold the property in favour of defendant No.2-his grand-son and the said sale deed in illegal or null and void. Both the defendants filed joint written statement. A separate R.S.A.No.2804 of 2009 2 written statement was also filed by defendant No.2. It was the stand of defendant No.1 that he had taken loan from the plaintiff and in lieu of loan, his signatures were obtained on some blank papers, which he had now forged into alleged agreement to sell. Defendant No.1 denied the receipt of Rs.40,000/- as earnest money. In a separate written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.2, it was asserted that he was a bona fide purchaser for consideration and that the plaintiff, who is a Government employee has not sought permission from his Department to purchase the land and that he was in possession of the same in pursuance of the sale deed dated 27.12.2001. He has alleged that the sale deed was signed by his uncle as his father is residing abroad and the sale consideration of Rs.1,02,500/- was paid to defendant No.1. Both the Courts have decreed the suit for specific performance. It has been found that the agreement to sell Ex.P-1 is proved to be executed. Defendant No.1 has admitted his signatures on the aforesaid document in the written statement. However, he has failed to prove that the agreement was fabricated and forged document. The plaintiff has examined PW-2 Nirpinder Mohan, Deed Writer and PW-3 Ajaib Singh, attesting witness. From the testimony of the attesting witness and the scribe a finding was returned that the payment of sum of Rs.40,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement. In fact, it was found that the action of defendant No.1 in executing the sale deed in favour of his grand-son clearly shows and exposes the mala fide conduct of defendant No.1 as execution of such sale deed is apparently in order to defeat the rights of R.S.A.No.2804 of 2009 3 the plaintiff. It was also found that since both the defendants are closely related being grand-father and grand-son and that there is nothing on record to show that there is any chance of collusion between defendant No.1 and the plaintiff. Such findings have been affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that defendant No.2 is a minor and, therefore, his rights are to be protected having purchased the property for a valuable consideration on 27.12.2001. However, I do not find any merit in the said argument. No doubt, the appellant is a minor, but he is a purchaser from none else, but his grand-father. Once the agreement to sell is proved to be executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff, the act of his grand-father in executing the sale deed dated 27.12.2001 is only an act to frustrate the rights of the plaintiff. Such sale lacks bona fide and, therefore, will not confer any valid title in his favour, when the vendor has agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff at an earlier point of time. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the Court below, cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity. The findings recorded by the Courts below do not give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 05.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE