RSA No. 1000 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1000 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.03.2011. Satish Kumar .......Appellant Vs. Mrs. Jyoti ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff Jyoti had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.4.2003. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 1.8.2003. `.50,000/- were paid towards earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. Plaintiff had remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar along with balance sale consideration for execution of the sale deed. Defendant Satish Kumar had failed to appear to perform his part of the contract. Hence, the suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement to sell. Defendant Satish Kumar, in his written statement, denied the execution of the agreement to sell in question. It was averred that the husband of the plaintiff had taken signatures of the defendant on blank stamp papers as a receipt for the arrears RSA No. 1000 of 2011 (O&M) -2- of rent. The husband of the plaintiff was a tenant under the defendant and was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.1997. On coming to know about the fraud, the defendant had failed a criminal complaint under Sections 420/465/467/468/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the plaintiff and her husband Pardeep Kumar. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant executed agreement dated 30.4.2003 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled over the possession of the demised property by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 30.4.2003? OPP 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the alternative? OPP 5. Whether plaintiff is estopped by her act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPP 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPP 7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPP 8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP 9. Relief.” Satish Kumar plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Jyoti and Pardeep Kumar RSA No. 1000 of 2011 (O&M) -3- challenging the agreement to sell in question. It was averred by the plaintiff Satish Kumar that Pardeep Kumar had taken his signatures and thumb impressions on the blank stamp papers. On coming to know about the fraud, a criminal complaint was filed by the plaintiff. The agreement to sell in question was a forged and fabricated document. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that defendant No.2 had already filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.4.2003. The plaintiff had executed the agreement to sell in question in favour of the defendant no.2. `. 50,000/- were paid towards earnest money to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had failed to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement to sell in question. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff has executed an agreement to sell dated 30.4.2003 in favour of defendant No.2 ? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the agreement to sell dated 30.4.2003 is illegal, null and void? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the signed stamp papers in any manner whatsoever? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the RSA No. 1000 of 2011 (O&M) -4- present suit by his own act and conduct? OPP 6. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.2006, Civili Judge (Junior Division) dismissed the suit filed by Satish Kumar and decreed the suit filed by Jyoti and a decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.4.2003 was passed in favour of the plaintiff Jyoti and against the defendant Satish Kumar. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Satish Kumar preferred two appeals and the same were dismissed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant qua the suit filed by Jyoti for specific performance of agreement to sell in question. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff Jyoti had filed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.4.2003. In order to prove her case, plaintiff Jyoti appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and examined PW-2 Prem Arora and PW-3 Satish Kumar, attesting witnesses of the agreement to sell. The said witnesses proved the due execution of the agreement to sell in question. Defendant, however, failed to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff Jyoti qua execution of the agreement to sell in question. In order to prove her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract, plaintiff Jyoti proved on record her affidavit Ex.P-2 which was attested by the Executive Magistrate. As per the said affidavit, the plaintiff had stated that she was ready with balance sale consideration for execution of the sale deed and had RSA No. 1000 of 2011 (O&M) -5- remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar on the stipulated date for execution of the sale deed. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the execution of agreement to sell in question stood duly proved. The said finding of fact calls for no interference. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 09, 2011 Gurpreet