RSA No. 2675 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2675 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.7.2009 Jarnail Singh ......Appellant Versus Balbir Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Inderpal Singh, Advocate, for the respondent-caveator. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 8.2.2000, was decreed. Vide the aforesaid agreement, the defendant-appellant purportedly entered into an agreement to sell 6-2/3 share out of total 38 share of the land measuring 1 kanal 18 marlas, over which the defendant has constructed a house consisting of three rooms, one kitchen, latrine and a bath room. As per the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid as earnest money out of total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- in the presence of marginal witnesses. The sale deed was to be executed on 8.8.2000, but the defendant failed to execute the sale deed which led to the filing of the RSA No. 2675 of 2009 (2) present suit for specific performance on 25.8.2000. The case of the defendant was one of the denial of agreement. It was asserted that a sum of Rs.9,000/- was borrowed by him from the plaintiff on interest @ 2% p.a., but the plaintiff pressurised him to sign some documents in the office of Tehsildar at a gun point under coercion & duress and threat to life and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree of specific performance of the agreement. In support of his case, the plaintiff appeared as PW1 and produced original agreement to sell dated 8.2.2000 Exhibit P.1. PW2 is Binder Singh, marginal witness of the agreement to sell and PW3- Kasturi Lal is a licenced stamp vender. On the other hand, the defendant appeared as his own witness and also examined Harjap Singh DW2 and Hardeep Singh DW3. They have deposed that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.9,000/- and the plaintiff has obtained signatures of the defendant under threat and coercion. Both the Courts have decreed the suit holding that the stand of the defendant is not plausible and reliable. The agreement to sell purported by the plaintiff stands proved and that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the site plan of the property in dispute was not attached with the plaint, which was required in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the decree for specific performance. He also argued that the plaintiff has not examined scribe of the alleged agreement, who was a relevant witness to prove the due execution of the agreement. RSA No. 2675 of 2009 (3) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length, I do not find any merit in the arguments raised. It has been found by both the Courts below that the plaintiff has described the property in the plaint by boundaries and such boundaries clearly identify the property agreed to be sold to the plaintiff. In view of the said fact, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. The evidence of a scribe is relevant, but not conclusive. In order to prove due execution of the agreement, the attesting witness has been examined, who has deposed about the due execution of the agreement, the signatures of defendant on the said agreement and payment of earnest money. His testimony has been believed by both the Courts below, therefore, the finding recorded by the Courts below, are the finding of fact recorded on the basis of evidence. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 28-07-2009 ds