RSA No.4038 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4038 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19 .10.2011 Karamjit Singh ...Appellant Vs. Raman Kumar & Ors. Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms.Allka Chatrath, Advocate, for the appellant. --- A.N.Jindal, J. Karamjit Singh defendant/appellant (herein referred as 'the defendant') has assailed the judgment and decree dated 23.3.2011 dismissing his appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.05.2009 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents (herein referred to as the plaintiffs) for an alternative relief to the tune of Rs.9 lac along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of agreement of sale i.e. 5.04.1997 till the date of filing of the suit and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum till realization. In order to assert their claim, the plaintiffs have set up an RSA No.4038 of 2011 2 agreement dated 5.4.1997 executed by the defendant in their favour for sale of 75 kanals 6 marlas of land as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per acre after receiving a sum of Rs.9 lac. Agreement was executed. Vide said agreement Ex.P.1, stipulated time for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 3.04.1998. However, on 2.4.1998, time for execution of sale deed was extended up to 2.04.1999. Thereafter it was extended up to 1.7.1999. On failure to execute the sale deed, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit on 8.11.2008. Upon notice, the defendant contested the suit, with the averments that the agreement Ex.P.1 is forged and fabricated document. Actually, the defendant was having a commission agent shop with Gurmukh Chand Juneja, father of plaintiff No.3 Sohan Lal. Sometimes Gurmukh Chand and sometimes plaintiff No.3 used to obtain the signatures of the defendant on blank stamp papers every year as security. It appears that plaintiff No.3 in connivance with other plaintiffs and the witnesses as well as the deed writer got forged the agreement and he never intended to sell his land. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the defendant executed an agreement to sell dated 5.4.1997 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing and still ready and willing to perform his part of agreement to sell dated 5.4.1997? OPP RSA No.4038 of 2011 3 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 5.4.1997 as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.12,87,000/- as prayed for? OPP 5. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 7. Relief. After appreciating the evidence, the trial court while holding that it was money transaction and not an agreement for sale of the property, declined the relief for specific performance and passed the money decree for alternative relief. Appeal against the said judgment was dismissed by District Judge on 23.3.2011. Execution of the agreement Ex.P.1 and passing of consideration thereunder stand established by Rattan Lal PW 3, scribe to the agreement and plaintiff Sohan Lal (PW 5). That part, PW 1 Amar Lal, an attesting witness to the agreement to sell dated 5.4.1997 has also corroborated the case of the plaintiffs. Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting & Finger Prints Expert as PW 6, who compared the signatures of the defendant/appellant on the agreement to sell Ex.P.1 with his admitted signatures has also opined that signatures on the agreement to sell Ex.P.1 as well as on the writing Ex.P.1/A, RSA No.4038 of 2011 4 on the back page of agreement are of one and the same person. He has also proved on record his report Ex.PW 6/1, negatives Ex.PW 6/2 to Ex.PW 6/12, photo charts Ex.PW 6/13 to Ex.PW 6/16 and specimen signatures of the defendant Ex.PW 6/17. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the defendant has also examined DW 2 Varun Gagneja, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert and he has stated that the signatures on the writing pertaining to the extension of time do not tally with the original signatures. Actually, the original signatures on Ex.P.1 stand admitted by the defendant. However, he has stated that said signatures were obtained by the plaintiffs on account of security on the blank stamp paper, but he has denied his signatures Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. Report made by Varun Gagneja (DW 2) is of no consequence when he particularly admits that variations may be present in the general signatures depending upon the skill of the writer. It is also well settled by now that science of handwriting and signatures is not a perfect science and variations in the signatures are bound to take place with the passage of time, skill of the writer, the position of mind, the mood of defendant, the age and his intention and habit to disguising the signatures. The defendant appears to have examined Varun Gagneja, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, in order to counter the earlier report of PW 6 Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting & Finger Prints Expert, who is an expert of repute suggesting no allegations against him. Even otherwise, the defendant has failed to rebut the RSA No.4038 of 2011 5 oral evidence of the plaintiffs, scribe and the witnesses, in whose presence the document was scribed and he had signed the same. Writing Ex.P2 and P.3 dated 2.4.1998 and 2.4.1999 cannot be false and fabricated one because as per record suit was filed on 8.11.2000 on the basis of the agreement dated 5.4.1997. Stipulated date for execution of the sale deed was 3.4.1998. Suit having been filed within three years from the stipulated date was within limitation and there was no need to make a repeated writing for extension of time. As such the plaintiffs cannot be said to have any intention to forge the entries to bring the suit within limitation. Consequently, the plea, that the entries were forged on the document, is proved to be incorrect. Since both the courts below have already given relief with regard to alternative relief for recovery of the amount, therefore, it would not be proper to further lessen the same. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination of this court. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 19.10.2011 Judge rp