RSA No. 1279 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1279 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.5.2011. Ranjor Singh .......Appellant Vs. Rajiv Kumar ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26.4.2002. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that defendant had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for a consideration of ` 3,00,000/- and an agreement to sell was executed in this regard on 26.4.2002. Plaintiff paid ` 1,00,000/- to the defendant towards earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement to sell in question. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 30.5.2002. The said date was later on extended to 9.4.2003, as requested by the defendant and a writing in this regard was executed on the backside of the agreement to sell in question on 30.5.2002. Plaintiff remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar on the stipulated date, fixed for execution of the sale deed but defendant had failed to appear and perform his part of the contract. Defendant, in his written statement, denied the execution of the agreement to sell in question and receipt of the RSA No. 1279 of 2011 (O&M) -2- earnest money. It was averred that the agreement to sell in question was a result of fraud and forgery. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26.4.2002, as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction sought? OPP 3. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 27.8.2008, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of ` 2,00,000/- along with interest. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, both plaintiff as well as defendant preferred the appeals. Vide judgment and decree dated 17.9.2010, the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal, filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal, filed by the defendant. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell in question was decreed. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26.4.2002. In order to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell in question, plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and examined Darshan Lal, Deed Writer as PW-1 and Arjun Singh, attesting witness to the agreement to sell in question, as PW-2. The said witnesses have deposed qua the due execution of the agreement to sell in question. RSA No. 1279 of 2011 (O&M) -3- The plaintiff also examined Ram Dhan Babbar, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert as PW-4, who proved his report qua his opinion that the questioned signatures of the defendant on the agreement to sell in question matched with his standard signatures. Thus, the plaintiff had been successful in proving the due execution of the agreement to sell in question. The defendant, on the other hand, had failed to rebut the evidence, led by the plaintiff qua execution of the agreement to sell in question. In order to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, plaintiff proved on record his affidavit Ex. P-4. Notice Ex. P-5 was also issued by the plaintiff asking the defendant to execute the sale deed. Defendant admitted the receipt of the said notice but failed to perform his part of the contract. The trial court, while declining the relief of specific performance, had not given any cogent reason. In these circumstances, the learned first appellate court rightly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff as the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance was liable to be decreed. The plaintiff had successfully proved the due execution of the agreement to sell in question and his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. No case was made out to decline the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 12, 2011 Gurpreet