Regular Second Appeal No.1455 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Regular Second Appeal No.1455 of 2009 Decided on : May 29, 2009 Hakam Singh ... Appellant VERSUS M/s Des Raj Dharam Pal and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the Appellant. A.N.JINDAL, J.- It is defendant's Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby, she dismissed the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.9.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent (herein referred as the plaintiff) for recovery of money on the basis of the agreement dated 5.11.1997. The plaintiff M/s Des Raj Dharam Pal on the strength of the agreement dated 5.11.1997 filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the defendant – appellant (herein referred as the defendant). It was averred that after receiving a sum of Rs.5 lacs (Rs.5,00,000/-) the defendant executed an agreement to sell 69 Kanals 2 Marlas of land for a consideration of Rs.5,50,000/-. The sale-deed was Regular Second Appeal No.1455 of 2009 [ 2 ] to be executed by the defendant on or before 11.3.1999, but despite the legal notice issued on 15.3.1999, the defendant did not execute the sale- deed. The suit was contested on the ground that the agreement was false, fictitious and a forged document; his signatures were obtained on blank papers, which were misused and converted into an agreement. Ultimately, the Trial Court vide its judgment dated 5.9.2006 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.5 lacs along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of agreement i.e, 5.11.1997 till the date of the judgment and future interest @ 6% per annum till its realisation. The appeal preferred by the defendant was also dismissed. So far as the execution of the agreement dated 5.11.1997 is concerned, the same stands fully proved. Dharam Pal, the attesting witness of the agreement while appearing as PW2 has stated that the agreement was executed in his presence by the defendant after receiving a sum of Rs.5 lacs as earnest money. The testimony of this witness has remained unshattered on cross-examination. Further Gurcharan Singh cashier while appearing as PW1 has proved that the amount of Rs.5 lacs was paid to the defendant through cheque No.908008 issued in favour of the defendant Hakam Singh. He has further deposed that the person receiving the amount of the bearer cheque is made to sign on its backside. So far as the version of the defendant is concerned, the same stands uncorroborated by any cogent or convincing evidence. The plaintiff has examined Navdeep Gupta (PW5), who compared the signatures of the defendant on the agreement with other signatures Regular Second Appeal No.1455 of 2009 [ 3 ] available on the file. The defendant also examined Dr.Inderjit Singh, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert as DW3, who also compared the signatures available in the Register of Stamp Vendor and other documents e.g, written statement, Vakalatnama, etc., but the Trial Court has rightly observed that since the comparison of handwriting is not a perfect science, therefore, the expert witnesses generally give opinion in favour of the party engaging them. In any case, the opinion of handwriting expert in the instant case is not of much relevance, particularly, in view of the fact that the defendant himself has stated that his signatures were obtained on blank plain papers and stamp papers, which were later on converted into agreements. This fact with regard to the forgery has not been proved by the defendant at all. There are concurrent findings of fact returned by both the courts below that the defendant had received Rs.5 lacs through cheque from the plaintiff, which appear to have been recorded on good reasons. No substantial question of law arises or is involved in the present case. Resultantly, finding no grounds to interfere in the impugned judgments, the appeal is dismissed. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE May 29, 2009 `gian'