IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.499 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.01.2011 Yashandeep Singh and others ........Appellants Versus Kirpal Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sherry Singla, Advocate for the appellants ****** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Jarnail Singh had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 08.01.1993. The case of the plaintiff was that defendant No.1 had agreed to sell 21 bighas 10 biswas of land to the plaintiff vide agreement to sell in question. Plaintiff paid ` 3 lacs as earnest money to defendant No.1 at the time of execution of agreement to sell. Parties had agreed that the sale deed would be executed on or before 28.10.1993. However, the defendant failed to appear before the Sub Registrar, Malerkotla for execution of the sale deed although plaintiff had remained present on 28.10.1993 for execution of the sale deed along with balance sale consideration. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 were aware of the execution of agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff by defendant No.1 yet they had purchased the property in question. Defendant No.1, however, executed sale deed dated 25.06.1993 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. R.S.A. No.499 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The case of defendant No.1 was that he had always been ready and willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The execution of the agreement to sell by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and receipt of ` 3 lacs as earnest money was admitted by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 denied execution of sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and it was averred that the said sale deed was a result of coercion. It was averred that on 25.06.1993, Baldev Singh-defendant No.2 had brought defendant No.1 to the Court Complex for getting a loan from defendant No.1. Two pronotes were executed in this regard. Defendant No.2 got the signatures and thumb impressions of defendant No.1 on certain blank stamp papers. Defendant No.2 refused to return the pronotes and receipts to defendant No.1 on demand. In fact, defendant No.1 was entitled to recover ` 3,50,000/- from defendant No.2. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 in their written statements averred that the suit had been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 were bona fide purchasers for consideration. No agreement to sell had been executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Moreover, the said agreement had no effect on the rights of defendant Nos.2 and 3 qua the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether defendant No.1 executed an agreement to sell dated 08.01.1993 in favour of plaintiff and if so, whether defendant No.1 receive Rs.Three lacs as earnest money from the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement to sell? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contracts? OPP. 3. Whether defendant No.1 committed default in executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff? OPP. (This issue is struck off vide order dated 5.08.03 being not necessary). R.S.A. No.499 of 2010 (O&M) -3- 4. Whether the alleged agreement dated 08.01.1993 is forged and fabricated document, as alleged by defendant Nos.2 and 3? OPC (2) 5. Whether defendant No.1 was always ready willing to execute the sale deed? OP (1). 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the contracts, of in the alternative, he is entitled for the refund of Rs. Six lacs (Rs. Three lacs as earnest money and Rs. 3 lacs as damages? OPP. 6A. Whether defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are bona fide purchase of the suit land for agreement to sell dated 8.1.1993 if so its effected? OPD. 7. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of ` 3 lacs from defendant No.1 along with interest vide judgment and decree dated 06.08.2003. Appeal filed by the plaintiff through his legal representatives was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.2009. Hence, the present appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the view that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 08.01.1993. The case of the plaintiff was that ` 3 lacs had been paid towards earnest money to defendant No.1 at the time of execution of agreement to sell in question. The sale deed was to be executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff on 28.10.1993. However, defendant No.1 executed sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 on 25.06.1993. Defendant No.1 has admitted the execution of agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and has also admitted the factum of receipt of ` 3 lacs from the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has denied the execution of sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. DW-2 Jagjit Singh, attesting witness, proved the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. The sale R.S.A. No.499 of 2010 (O&M) -4- deeds Ex.DY and DY/1 executed in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 respectively were scribed by Ramesh Kumar, Deed Writer and thereafter presented for registration. The Deed Writer Ramesh Kumar appeared in the witness box as DW-4. He also proved the entries in his register qua the scribing of the sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 by defendant No.1. Thus, defendant Nos.2 and 3 had been successful in proving the due execution of the sale deeds in their favour by defendant No.1. It appears that the plaintiff has filed the present suit in collusion with defendant No.1 just to jeopardize the rights of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Defendant No.1 had admitted in his written statement that he had executed agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and had received ` 3 lacs from the plaintiff. By way of the present suit, the defendant No.1 apparently wanted to avoid the sale deeds executed by him in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3, who were bona fide purchasers for consideration. In these circumstances, the learned Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff qua recovery of ` 3 lacs as the defendant No.1 had admitted receipt of the said amount from the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Dismissed. January 10, 2011 (SABINA) Gagan JUDGE