Regular Second Appeal No.2528 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2528 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 13,2009 Ranjeet Singh ...........Appellant Versus Dharamvir ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Surender Dhull,Advocate for the Appellant. ** Sabina, J. Ranjeet Singh-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement to sell dated 24.1.1997. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) Palwal dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 5.3.2008 and in appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 27.3.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in para 2, of its judgment reads as under:- “ 2. A suit for specific performance was filed by Ranjeet Singh. His plea was that defendant Dharamvir entered into an agreement of sale of ½ share of land detailed in para no.1 of the plaint with him, for a consideration of Rs.1,45,000/-, on 24.1.997. A sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was paid by the plaintiff and it was agreed that the defendant would execute the sale deed on or before 25.2.1998. It Regular Second Appeal No.2528 of 2009(O&M) 2 was pleaded that the defendants failed to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It was pleaded that the defendant failed to perform his part, a legal notice was sent . It was pleaded that the plaintiff appeared in the office of Sub Registrar on 25.2.1998 to execute the sale deed with the balance price and waited for the defendant but he did not turn up. It was pleaded that the defendant had delivered the possession to him and he was in possession of the property. The plaintiff prayed for a decree for specific performance on the payment of balance amount, in the alternative, he prayed for compensation i.e. Rs.1,45,000/-.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant executed an agreement dated 24.1.1997 in favour of the plaintiff and received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- by way of earnest money?OPP 2. If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of agreement dated 24.1.1997 ?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land? If so its effect ?OPP 4. Whether agreement dated 24.1.1997 relied upon by the plaintiff is fabricated?OPD 5. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Regular Second Appeal No.2528 of 2009(O&M) 3 Plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 24.1.1997. The case of the plaintiff was that the total sale consideration was Rs.1,45,000/- and he had paid Rs.1,20,000/- as earnest money to the defendant. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 25.2.1998. He had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendant had failed to honour the agreement to sell in question. Defendant, on the other hand, denied, the execution of the agreement to sell. Defendant also lodged a complaint with regard to the agreement to sell. The appellant and the two attesting witnesses are facing criminal trials. PW3 Mahender Singh Rawat, Advocate stated that he was related to the plaintiff. He had drafted the agreement (Exhibit P1) and receipt (Exhibit P2) and the plaintiff had introduced a person named Dharamvir to him but the said person was not present in the Court when his statement was recorded. However, when his statement was recorded, defendant side pointed out that Dharamvir is present in Court. The handwriting expert examined by the plaintiff gave a report that the signatures on the agreement to sell were of the defendant. However, in a complaint lodged by Dharamvir-defendant with the police, a report was received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Karnal that the signatures on the agreement to sell were not of Dharamvir. In this regard, DW2 Gulshan Rai, Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban appeared in the witnees box and he deposed that the signatures on Exhibits P1 and P2 were not of the defendant. Learned District Judge has observed in its judgment that a Regular Second Appeal No.2528 of 2009(O&M) 4 perusal of the agreement shows that the matter had been typed in such a manner so as to adjust the signatures of the defendant which were already in existence on the paper. It has also been observed that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract because he had failed to prove that he had appeared before the Sub Registrar to get his presence marked on the day stipulated for execution of the agreement to sell. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as it was established on record that the agreement to sell (Exhibit P1) and receipt (Exhibit P2) were the fabricated documents. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 13, 2009 arya