R.S.A.NO.399 OF 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. Nos.1450-51-C of 2009 and R.S.A.NO.399 OF 2006 Date of decision: 24th September, 2009 Saroop Singh ......Appellant Versus Raj Kumar .....Respondent Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. H.S.Bakshi, Advocate for the appellant. Rajive Bhalla, J. Civil Misc. No. 1450-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Civil Misc. No. 1451-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Annexures P-1 and P-2 are taken on record. R.S.A.No.399 of 2006 The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees dated 1.04.2003 and 22.08.2005, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka and the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14.04.1995, alleging that the defendant-appellant had agreed to sell 6 marlas, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/- and for the said purpose has received Rs. 30,000/- as earnest money. It is further R.S.A.NO.399 OF 2006 -2- pleaded that it was agreed between the parties that the sale deed would be excecuted on or before 13.10.1995. However, as the appellant did not come forward to execute the sale deed, despite repeated requests, the plaintiff-respondent was left with no alternative but to file the present suit. In response, the appellant, pleaded forgery and fraud and alleged that he had raised a loan of Rs. 15,000/- from one Ramesh Chander Kapoor, who had in connivance with the plaintiff-Raj Kumar, forged the agreement to sell, so as to recover the loan amount. It was pleaded that to settle this dispute, a Panchayat was convened where it was decided that in case the plaintiff-respondent pays a sum of Rs 72000/-, the defendant-appellant would execute a sale deed in his favour. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court held that the agreement to sell stands proved and therefore, decreed the suit for specific performance. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 22.08.2005, the first appellate court partly accepted the appeal and held that though the agreement to sell stands proved but in view of the compromise arrived at before the Panchayat and other relevant facts, the respondent cannot be granted the relief of specific performance, but is entitled to recover Rs. 30,000/- paid as earnest money with interest @6% per annum. Counsel for the appellant argues that the agreement R.S.A.NO.399 OF 2006 -3- to sell is a forged and fabricated document as no person would agree to sell 6 marlas of land for a paltry amount of Rs. 32,000/-. It is further submitted that a simple loan has been fraudulently altered to an agreement to sell. As the first appellate court declined the relief of specific performance, it had no jurisdiction to direct the appellant to return earnest money. I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below and express my inability to accede to the arguments addressed by counsel for the appellant or to hold that any question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration. Both the trial court and the first appellate court have held that the agreement to sell stands proved but the first appellate court has declined the relief of specific performance but ordered refund of the earnest money. The mere inadequacy of consideration cannot by itself be a circumstance to hold that the agreement is forged or fabricated. In fact by raising a plea of a compromise before the Panchayat, the appellant has, in essence, admitted the execution of the agreement. Even otherwise, the agreement has been proved by the deposition of the attesting witnesses. In this view of the matter, the findings of fact that the agreement to sell stands proved, do not merit interference. As regards the appellant's plea that the first appellate court could not have ordered refund of earnest money of Rs. 30,000/-, I find no reason whether in law or in equity to hold as urged. The appellant admits the receipt of Rs. 15,000/-, but as a R.S.A.NO.399 OF 2006 -4- loan. He has failed to produce any cogent evidence to substantiate this plea. In view of the fact, that the findings recorded by the courts below do not suffer from any error, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 24th September, 2009 Shivani kaushik