IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3720 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: November 01, 2011 Veer Singh .. Appellant Vs. Jatinder Singh .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J This regular second appeal preferred by Veer Singh defendant- appellant (herein referred as, 'the defendant') is against the judgment dated 1.2.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Pathankot, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent (herein referred as, 'the plaintiff'). The facts essential for disposal of the present appeal are that Jatinder Singh plaintiff- respondent (herein referred as, the plaintiff) had filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 4.2.2005 executed by the defendant Veer Singh in favour of the plaintiff for sale of 8 kanals, of land situated at village Chak Chimna as fully detailed in the heading of the plaint, for a sale consideration of `3 lacs. After receiving a sum of `1,25,000/- as an earnest money, the defendant executed an agreement on 4.2.2005. The stipulated date for execution of the agreement was fixed as 4.2.2006. On 4.2.2006 being Saturday and 5.2.2006 being Sunday, the plaintiff appeared before the Sub Registrar, Pathankot on 6.2.2006 in order to show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract but the defendant failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, and performing remaining part of his contract, thus, he filed the present suit while claiming an alternative relief. The suit was contested by the defendant, wherein though he admitted that he is owner of the land measuring 8 kanals, but denied having R.S.A. No. 3720 of 2011 -2- *** entered into any such agreement. He has further submitted that in fact he had obtained a loan of `25000/- from the plaintiff and at that time, he had obtained his signatures on some blank papers which were mis-utilized. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance of agreement as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of `3,00,000/- as prayed for?OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as no agreement has been executed between the parties?OPD 5. Relief. Both the parties led evidence and ultimately the suit was decreed. The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed. The execution of the agreement and passing of the earnest money thereunder have duly been proved by PW-3 Jatinder Singh and he was cross examined at length. Besides, J.S. Saini, Advocate (PW1), who was scribe of the agreement and writing Ex.P2, has duly proved the same. Besides, PW-2 Kulbir Singh is the attesting witness of the agreement. The plaintiff has also proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract while specifically stating that he has always been ready and willing to perform the same. Affidavits Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 dated 3.2.2005 and 6.2.2005 respectively also go a long way to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. It has also been proved on the record that the defendant was the owner in possession of the suit land, therefore, he was competent to enter into contract. On the other hand, the defendant has also admitted the receipt of the earnest money, but has stated only that he received the same as loan which cannot be believed at all. No amount of evidence has been led in order to support his bald statement. R.S.A. No. 3720 of 2011 -3- *** Learned counsel for the plaintiff has failed to raise any such substantial question of law which may need to be determined. Dismissed in limine. November 01, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge