R.S.A.No. 1315 of 1996 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1315 of 1996 Date of decision: 10.11.2009 Banta Singh ......Appellant Versus Baggu Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Banta Singh filed a suit for possession through specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.8.1986, which was dismissed by the Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepur, vide judgment and decree dated 8.5.1993. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 4.12.1995. Hence, the present appeal. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 3 and 4 of its judgment, are as under:- R.S.A.No. 1315 of 1996 2 “3. The factual matrix of the case are that the defendants are owners of the land measuring 25 kanals 11 marla as detailed in the heading of the plaint. They agreed to sell the suit land at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per acre and entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff on 7.8.1986 and the defendants received a sum of Rs.5,000/- as earnest money under the said agreement and agreed to get the sale deed executed, attested and registered on 30.12.1986. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, whereas, the defendants committed default. The plaintiff, as per terms of the agreement, remained present before the office of Sub Registrar on the stipulated date i.e. 30.12.1986 but the defendants did not turn up which led to the filing of the suit. 4. Notice of the suit was served upon the defendants but they failed to put in their appearance despite service and they were proceeded against ex- parte.” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.8.1986 executed by defendants in his favour. Defendants were ex parte before the R.S.A.No. 1315 of 1996 3 trial Court. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, examined PW-2 Teja Singh and PW-3 Santa Singh, attesting witnesses to the agreement to sell and himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1. However, a perusal of the agreement to sell reveals that the names of the witnesses Santa Singh and Teja Singh have been typed with a different typewriter. In these circumstances, the Courts below have inferred that the agreement to sell had not been executed in the presence of the alleged attesting witnesses Santa Singh and Teja Singh. The said inference drawn by the Courts below is correct because there is no explanation as to why the names of the attesting witnesses have been typed with a different typewriter. Learned Additional District Judge has further observed in the impugned judgment that a perusal of agreement Ex.P-3 reveals that the date on agreement to sell had been typed on the thumb impressions of Baggu Singh. Hence, an inference could easily be drawn that the thumb impressions of Baggu Singh might have been obtained much prior to writing of the agreement. In these circumstances, learned Additional District Judge rightly held that the agreement Ex.P-3 was a tampered document and no reliance could be placed on the same. Moreover, Sunder Singh, witness had not thumb marked or signed the agreement to sell and the plaintiff had failed to furnish any explanation as to why the thumb impression of Sunder Singh was not affixed on the agreement to sell. A perusal of agreement to sell reveals that Khasra Nos. R.S.A.No. 1315 of 1996 4 21 (5-8), 22 (8-0), 23/1 (2-3) of killa No.9 and khasra No.25 (10-0) of killa No.8 were agreed to be sold. However, a perusal of jamabandi Ex.P-2 reveals that the defendants were co-sharers in land bearing khasra No.8//25 (10-0), 9//21/1 (5-8), 23/2 (2-3), 22 (8-0) and 23/1/1 (2-14). Thus, Baggu Singh and Nadar Singh were not owners of Khasra Nos.21 (5-8) and 23/1 (2-3). In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly held that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 10, 2009 anita