IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1981 of 2005 Date of decision: December 24, 2008 Guddi @ Joginder Kaur ... Appellant Versus Jagtar Singh & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. J.R. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P. K. Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Goyal, Advocate for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for specific performance of two agreements to sell dated 24.05.1978 and 15.06.1979. The Courts below have also relied upon the earlier litigation with regard to this very agreement. That litigation related to a suit against the appellants for restraining them from alienating the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly argued that the respondents had taken the land from him on Chakota and by taking advantage of his simple mindedness, got his thumb impressions on 3 or 4 papers and what was represented to him as Chakotanama was turned into RSA No.1981 of 2005 -2- two agreements for sale dated 24.05.1978 and 15.06.1979. The primary plank of his argument is that an application was moved by the appellant for correction of Khasra Girdawari and in those proceedings the respondent had admitted that he was in possession of the land in dispute as Chakotedar, while in the plaint it was mentioned that respondent had entered into possession under the agreement dated 24.05.1978 Ex. P-1. This circumstance has been quite adequately considered in the earlier judgment Ex. D-21. Even though the said judgment may not construe res judicata yet the evidence & findings recorded therein cannot be washed away either. Learned counsel has referred me extensively to the pleadings and the evidence in the Courts below. Few things which clearly emerge are, that the documents Ex. P-1 and Ex.P-3 have not been typed on the same machine; admitted thumb impressions of the appellant on Ex.P-3 are in two different inks; Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-4 are the thumb impressions/signatures of the parties on the register of the sale deed writer and they also appear to be signed on different dates. All this tends to falsify the version of the appellant that the respondents had obtained his thumb impression on all the documents while he was sitting in the Gurudwara. Learned counsel has also argued that the agreements were of the year 1978 and 1979 but suit was filed in the year 1994. To counter this, the respondent draws support from the recital in Ex. P-3 that the sale deed would be executed within one month of the conclusion of the litigation regarding the land in RSA No.1981 of 2005 -3- dispute. However, I am not able to accept the assertion regarding contemporaneous execution of Ex. P-1 to P-4, and thus hold that the findings of fact of the Courts below cannot be held to be perverse or not arising from the material on record. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. December 24, 2008 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE