RSA No. 4508 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4508 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.02.2011. Baljinder Singh .......Appellant Vs. Balbir Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. J.S.Toor, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.5.2003. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that defendant was owner of the land in dispute measuring 15 Kanals 9 Marlas. The agreement to sell was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff qua the suit property on 14.5.2003. ` 5,30,000/- was paid as earnest money by the plaintiff to the defendant, in the presence of attesting witnesses. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 18.11.2003. Plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Bassi Pathana along with balance sale consideration on the stipulated date but the defendant failed to appear before the Sub Registrar for execution of the sale deed. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant in his written statement denied the RSA No. 4508 of 2010 (O&M) -2- execution of agreement to sell in question. It was averred that the agreement to sell in question was a fabricated document. Defendant used to sell his crop at the commission agent shop of a relative of plaintiff. In this regard, signatures of defendant had been taken on blank stamp papers by Kulwant Singh and Bhupinder Singh. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 14.5.2003 ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of `.6,75,942/- along with interest from the defendant in the alternative? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether alleged agreement to sell dated 14.5.2003 is forged and false documents? OPD 7. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2009, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and RSA No. 4508 of 2010 (O&M) -3- decree dated 3.5.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. 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 was a result of forgery and was thus, not a genuine document. Plaintiff in order to prove his case himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and examined PW-2 Rajinder Singh, scribe and PW-3 Bhupinder Singh, one of the attesting witness of agreement to sell in question. Defendant, on the other hand to rebut the evidence led by plaintiff, examined, DW-2 Gurmeet Kaur, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert and defendant Balbir Singh himself appeared in the witness box as DW-1. The hand writing expert examined by the defendant, after examining the agreement to sell in question, gave his opinion that it was a forged document i.e. forging by trickery. A perusal of agreement to sell in question Ex. P-2 (shown during the course of arguments) reveals that the spacing of lines on the first three pages of the said document is a lot more than the spacing between the lines at page No. 4. This fact supports the plea of the defendant that the agreement to sell in question was a result of forgery and had been written on the stamp papers which were already signed by the defendant. The case of the defendant is that he was selling his crop with Kulwant Singh, Commission Agent. PW-3 Bhupinder Singh, who is the attesting RSA No. 4508 of 2010 (O&M) -4- witness to the agreement to sell, has deposed in his cross examination that Kulwant Singh was his real uncle. Kulwant Singh while appearing in the witness box as DW-3 has also deposed that Bhupinder Singh was his nephew. Balbir Singh used to sell his crop through him. The fact that Bhupinder Singh, attesting witness to the agreement to sell in question was nephew of Kulwant Singh, has been admitted by the scribe (PW-2) also. In these circumstances, the courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the agreement to sell in question was the result of forgery. Defendant had been successful in rebutting the evidence led by plaintiff qua execution of the agreement to sell. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 21, 2011 Gurpreet