IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2641 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.12.2010 Makhan Singh & others ..Appellants Versus Harbhajan Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Gopal Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. *** GURDEV SINGH, J.(ORAL) This appeal has been preferred by legal representatives of Jagir Singh, against whom the suit was filed by Harbhajan Singh respondent/plaintiff for possession of the land in dispute measuring 8 Kanals situated at Village Mehta, Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur by way of specific performance of agreement dated 22.01.2001. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Batala vide judgement and decree dated 31.3.2008. These legal representatives/appellants preferred first appeal against that judgement and decree, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge(Adhoc) Gurdaspur, vide judgement and decree dated 5.11.2009. The case of the plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, is that the defendant agreed to sell the suit land in his favour for a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- (Rupees Two lacs and Thirty Thousand only) and after receiving earnest/advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) executed agreement dated 22.01.2001 in his favour. As per that agreement the sale deed was to be executed and got registered by the defendant up to RSA No. 2641 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 20.4.2001 after the receipt of the balance sale price. He was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. On the date fixed for the execution of sale deed, he went to the Tehsil complex Dera Baba Nanak with requisite cash to have the sale deed executed, but the defendant did not turn up though he remained present there throughout the day. Regarding his presence he got his affidavit attested. The suit was contested by the defendant. In his written statement he denied the contentions of the plantiff and pleaded that he never executed any such agreement in favour of the plaintiff and the same is based on false documents. Even the affidavit has been prepared by the plaintiff falsely in connivance with the officials of Tehsil office. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the learned trial Court. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22.01.2001 as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff was and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement to sell dated 22.01.2001?OPP 3. If issue No. 2 is proved, whether in the alternative, Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 100,000/- by way of damages as alleged?OPP 4.Whether no cause of action has accrued in favour of the Plaintiff?OPP. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-4, Sulakhan Singh son of Ujjagar Singh as PW-1, Sulakhan Singh Sarpanch PW-2 and Parshotam Lal PW-3. One of the legal representatives of the RSA No. 2641 of 2010 (O&M) -3 defendant; namely, Makhan Singh entered the witness box as DW-1. After going through that evidence and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the learned trial Court decided issue No. 1, 2 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff and issue No. 3 against him and resultantly decreed his suit. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. It has been submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the findings recorded by the Lower Courts are the result of misreading of the evidence as defendant was successful in proving on record that on the day the agreement in question is alleged to have been executed at Ramdass a sale deed was got executed from him by the plaintiff in the Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak and under the garb of that sale deed, the signatures of the defendant were obtained on the blank papers, which have been used for fabricating the agreement. He referred to cross-examinaton of the plaintiff PW4 wherein he stated that the amount paid as sale consideration at the time of the sale deed was collected by him from his friends and relatives and submitted that if such was the position, how it can be said that the plaintiff was having Rs. 50,000/- with him, which is alleged said to have been paid as earnest money. The said facts were never pleaded in the written statement. However, these facts were put to the plaintiff during the cross examination. It was admitted by the plaintiff that such a sale deed was so executed in his favour and that he had collected the money from his friends and relatives. No such fact could be elicited during that cross examination on the basis of which it may be said that the plaintiff had obtained the signatures of the defendant on the blank papers under the garb of execution of the sale deed. If he could have collected the amount running into lakhs for getting the sale RSA No. 2641 of 2010 (O&M) -4- deed executed, it was not difficult for him to collect another sum of Rs. 50,000/- which was paid by him to the defendant as earnest money. His statement has been fully collaborated by his witnesses; namely, Sulakhan Singh son of Ujjagar Singh PW-1 and Sulakhan Singh Sarpanch PW-2, who had attested the agreement. The defendant was not able to extract any such circumstance during their cross-examination on the basis of which it may be held that they have an animus to depose in favour of the plaintiff or against the defendant. There is nothing on the record to conclude that the findings of the Lower Courts are based on misreading of evidence. Concurrent findings of the facts were recorded after duly appreciating the evidence produced by both the sides. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) 8.12.2010 JUDGE Poonam (II)