RSA No.3329 of 2009(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 3329 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.02.2011 Smt.Kirpal Kaur .....Appellant Versus Kulwant Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Rangi Advocate, for the appellant Mr.B.P.S.Virk,Advocate for the respondent **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 3.1.2001. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that defendant had agreed to sell 1 bigha 16 biswas of land to the plaintiff on 3.1.2001 and had executed an agreement to sell in his favour on the said date. ` 60,000/- were paid as earnest money by the plaintiff to the defendant. The sale deed was to be executed on 5.2.2002 . On the stipulated date, plaintiff remained present in the Office of the Sub RSA No.3329 of 2009(O&M) 2 Registrar Rajpura but the defendant failed to appear to execute the sale deed in his favour. Defendant in her written statement denied the execution of the agreement to sell in question. The receipt of ` 60,000/- towards earnest money was also denied. It was averred that the agreement to sell in question was false and fabricated document and without consideration. Defendant was an old lady of 75 years and her thumb impression might have been obtained by stating wrong facts. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether agreement dated 3.1.2001 was executed in between the parties?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff had paid Rs.60,000/- to the defendant on 3.1.2001, the date of agreement as earnest money?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession by way of specific performance of agreement upon payment of balance sale consideration?OPP 4.Whether agreement in question is false and fabricated document and is result of fraud and misrepresentation?OPD 5.Relief” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell in question vide judgment and decree dated 26.8.2008. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal, filed by defendant, by the District Judge Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 19.1.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. RSA No.3329 of 2009(O&M) 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had based his claim on agreement to sell dated 3.1.2001 to seek possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell in question. Plaintiff, in order to prove his case, himself appeared in the witness box as PW1 and examined PW2 Gurmit Singh, PW3 Jaswant Singh, attesting witness to the agreement to sell. Plaintiff also examined PW5 Navdeep Gupta, who after comparing the questioned thumb impression of the defendant on the agreement to sell and her standard thumb impression, opined that they were of the same person. Thus, the witness examined by the plaintiff had duly proved the execution of the agreement to sell in question. Defendant, on the other hand, has failed to establish her plea of fraud. In order to establish that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, plaintiff proved on record Exhibit P5. As per the same, plaintiff had remained present in the Office of Sub Registrar on the stipulated date to perform his part of the contract. The Courts below had, thus, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina) Judge February 03,2011 arya RSA No.3329 of 2009(O&M) 4