RSA No. 2072 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2072 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.5.2011. Jagjeet Singh .......Appellant Vs. Gurnam Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. S.S.Godara, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.1.2005. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that defendant had agreed to sell the suit land measuring 17 Kanals 12 Marlas to the plaintiff for a consideration of ` 4,40,000/-. At the time of execution of the agreement to sell in question, ` 2,25,000/- were paid by the plaintiff towards earnest money to the defendant. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 19.7.2005 and later on, the date for execution of the sale deed was extended to 18.10.2005 on 19.7.2005. Plaintiff remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar on the stipulated date for execution of the sale deed along with balance sale consideration but the defendant had failed to appear to perform his part of the contract. Hence, the suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff. RSA No. 2072 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Defendant, in his written statement, averred that he had taken a loan of ` 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and his signatures had been obtained on blank stamp paper. The agreement to sell in question had not been executed by the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether defendant executed an agreement to sell dated 19.1.2005 in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre qua the disputed land as alleged? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of agreement? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 6. Relief.” Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 16.4.2009, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell in question. The said judgment and decree were upheld, in appeal filed by the defendant, by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2011. 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. RSA No. 2072 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance basing his claim on agreement to sell dated 19.1.2005. In order to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell in question, plaintiff examined Hanuman Prasad, Stamp Vendor as PW-1, Rajesh Kumar Jindal, Deed Writer as PW-2 and Jagraj Singh, one of the attesting witness to the agreement to sell in question, as PW-3. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-4. The plaintiff as well as the deed writer and the attesting witness proved the due execution of the agreement to sell in question. The said witnesses further proved the extension of the date for execution of the sale deed from 19.7.2005 to 18.10.2005 on 19.7.2005. A perusal of the agreement to sell in question (shown during the course of arguments), reveals that the agreement to sell in question as well as the endorsement qua extension of the date of sale deed are duly signed by the defendant. The defendant, on the other hand, had failed to substantiate his plea that his signatures had been taken on blank papers. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the agreement to sell in question as well as the endorsement qua extension of the date for execution of the sale deed, were executed by the defendant. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 11, 2011 Gurpreet