R.S.A. No.2936 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.2936 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:25.07.2011 Jarnail Singh ......Appellant Versus Joginder Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Jagdev Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Tersenessly, the facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record, are that Joginder Singh, Joga Singh and Surjit Singh sons of Tara Singh-respondent-plaintiffs(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit for a decree for specific performance of the contract/sale- deed executed on 26.06.2004, in respect of the land in dispute, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Jarnail Singh son of Harmel Singh-appellant-defendant(for brevity “the defendant”), from transferring the suit land, in any manner. 2. The case set up by the plaintiffs, in brief, insofar as relevant was, that the defendant had entered into an oral agreement with the plaintiffs to sell his land in dispute, measuring 21 kanals 7 marlas @ `2,10,000/- per acre, for a total consideration of `5,60,500/-. He(defendant) had borrowed the loan against the land in dispute from State Bank of Patiala, Lehra Branch. He had received an amount of `1,30,000/- from the plaintiffs on 22.6.2004, out of total consideration amount and deposited the same with the Bank. The plaintiffs accompanied him at the time of deposit of the amount in the Bank. According to the plaintiffs that, on R.S.A. No.2936 of 2011 2 24.06.2004, the defendant on receipt of remaining sale consideration to the tune of `4,30,500/-, executed the sale-deed in respect of the suit land, in the presence of Jarnail Singh son of Shingara Singh in favour of the plaintiffs. After having scribed the same from Pawan Kumar Jindal, Deed-Writer, it was attested by the witnesses. The sale-deed was stated to have been read over and explained to the defendant and he put his thumb impression thereon in the presence of witnesses in token of its correctness. When they were just going to the office Sub-Registrar, Lehragaga, for registration of the sale-deed at about 11.30 AM, Janta Singh father- in-law of the defendant along with many other persons came there and compelled the defendant to sit in Sumo vehicle and took him away with them. Thereafter, the plaintiffs tried to contact the defendant , but in vain. When the plaintiffs met the defendant, they asked him to get the sale-deed registered, but he refused to do so. It was explained that they were and are ready and willing to get the sale-deed registered, but the defendant did not execute/register the same on one pretext or the other. The plaintiffs claimed that he(defendant) is bent upon to alienate the suit land to some other persons, without any legal basis. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree of specific performance of the contract/sale-deed and permanent injunction against the defendant, in the manner depicted hereinabove. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, cause of action, estoppel and locus standi of the plaintiffs. The indicated sale-deed was stated to be forged and fabricated document. The defendant claimed that Tara Singh, father of the plaintiffs and he were having cordial relations and used to drink together. They served him drinks continuously, kept him confined in the house of his relation at Lehragaga, and obtained his thumb impressions in a drunken condition. He neither got scribed or executed any sale-deed, nor received any amount in this respect. It will not be out of place to mention here that the R.S.A. No.2936 of 2011 3 defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiff filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the essential issues, mentioned in its judgment, for proper adjudication of the case. 5. The parties to the lis in order to substantiate their respective stands, brought on record oral as well as the documentary evidence. 6. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 09.06.2009. 7. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendant filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011. 8. Appellant-defendant still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this regard. 10. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel for the defendant that since, the plaintiffs have failed to prove the payment of consideration amount of the sale-deed, so, the Courts below committed a legal mistake in decreeing their suit, sans merit. 11. Having completed all the codal formalities and taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the trial Court rightly decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs, in the following manner:- “As per evidence, the plaintiff has duly executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff regarding suit land, but before sale deed could be registered, R.S.A. No.2936 of 2011 4 plaintiff disappeared from the Tehsil Complex. Execution of the sale deed has been proved by the plaintiff, attesting witness, stamp vendor and deed writer through their evidence. The contention of the defendant is that his signatures might have been taken by the plaintiff after intoxicating him. However, the defendant has failed to prove any such allegations. He has also failed to justify that if his signatures were taken after intoxicating him, why he did not take action against the plaintiff for the alleged illegal act. The defendant however has pointed certain discrepancies in the statements of plaintiff, made in this case, as well as in FIR No.179 of 27.10.04 of PS Lehra under Sections 420, 406 120B IPC, to the effect that one Mukhtiar Singh was also present at the time of transaction and that defendant was alone when plaintiff went to his home. He has also pointed out certain discrepancies regarding presence of persons at relevant time. However, these discrepancies are immaterial and are bound to occur after a lapse of time. He has also pointed out that PW1 had stated that agreement to sell took place on 19.6.04, whereas in plaint it is pleaded that it took place on 21.6.04. Such discrepancies do not have any effect on otherwise un- impeached documentary as well as oral evidence. Furthermore, the defendant has not cross examined the plaintiff that the bank receipt was forged or that the defendant was drunk when his signatures were allegedly procured. In these circumstances, the defendant has failed to prove that any forgery regarding execution of sale deed was committed by the plaintiff upon the defendant and it is clear that sale deed was duly executed and is thus liable to be registered and the plaintiff is entitled to relief of specific performance of sale deed dt.26.6.04. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.” 12. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was affirmed by the first Appellate Court through the medium of impugned judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011, which in substance is, as under:- “So, since the evidence led by the present respondents speaks the volume, as on the record it amply proves the fact that the sale deed was scribed by PW4 Pawan Kumar Jindal at the instance of the present appellant in favour of the respondents regarding the suit land and moreover, the present respondents had got examined PW-2 Jarnail Singh being attesting witness of the sale deed and as such in case the same was never got registered by the present appellant before the Sub Registrar but this Court feels that the R.S.A. No.2936 of 2011 5 sale deed Ex.P2 is admissible in evidence in view of provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act for collateral purpose. On this point, I am also supported with the authority of 2004(4) RCR(Civil) 691 in the case titled as Vijay Kumar Versus Mahesh Kumar. Further besides the fact that the present respondents were able to prove sale deed, so scribed by PW-4 Pawan Kumar Jindal, at the behest of the present appellant in favour of the respondents, the record reveals i.e., interim order dated 15.10.2010, so passed by the learned lower court shows that the sale deed has been executed by the Local Commissioner. So, since the sale deed stands duly executed and registered presently, as such this Court feels that the appellant could not make out his case, so as to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2009. Rather on the other hand, respondents had duly led cogent and convincing evidence and proved the fact that sale deed Ex.P2 dated 24.06.2004 was scribed at the instance of the present appellant in favour of the respondents regarding the suit land and moreover, the present appellant had taken the entire sale consideration of Rs.5,60,500/- from the respondents. Resultantly, the appeal so filed by the present appellant is meritless and as such, the same is hereby dismissed.” 13. Learned counsel for the appellant did not point out any material, much less cogent, to indicate how and in what manner, any interference is called for, in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below. 14. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, to assail the findings of the Courts below. All the remaining contentions, pertaining to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on his behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below, in this relevant direction. 15. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the Courts below have recorded the above indicated findings of fact. Such pure findings of fact based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the R.S.A. No.2936 of 2011 6 learned counsel for the appellant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of the well-reasoned decision arrived at by the Courts below, in this respect. 16. In this manner, the entire matrix revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, much-less substantial, is involved in the second appeal, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh Versus Harnam Singh and another, 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, so, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, as contemplated under Section 100 CPC, in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 17. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 18. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. July 25, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE R.S.A. No.2936 of 2011 7 C.M.Nos.8138 and 8140-C of 2011 in R.S.A. No.2936 of 2011 Present: Mr.Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Jagdev Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. **** C.M.No.8138-C of 2011 This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condonation of 33 days' delay in refiling the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the delay of 33 days in re-filing the appeal, is condoned. Civil Misc. application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.8140-C of 2011 Application is allowed, as prayed for. July 25, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE