R.S.A.No. 3372 of 2009(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3372 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:September 17, 2009 Dhanno Devi and another ---Appellants versus Paramjeet Singh and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Arvind Singh,Advocate, for the appellants. *** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs-Paramjeet Singh and Shamsher Singh had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 1.1.1996. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, defendant s preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 29.8.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. R.S.A.No. 3372 of 2009(O&M) {2} The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “Facts of the case are that on 13.12.1999, the plaintiffs- respondents filed a suit for possession by specific performance with the averments that one Bir Singh was the husband of defendant-appellant No. 1 and adoptive father of defendant- appellant No. 2. The said Bir Singh was owner of land measuring 7 kanals 18 Marlas being 158/1716 shares in the land measuring 85 Kanals 16 Marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1992-93 situated at village Kirmich, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. The said Bir Singh, during his life time, had given general power of attorney deed dated 8.8.1995 in favour of his wife, i.e. Defendant-appellant No. 1, whereby, she was, inter alia, authorised to alienate his land. According to the plaintiffs-respondents, defendant-appellant No. 1 being attorney of her husband Bir Singh, entered into an agreement to sell dated 1.1.996 in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents in respect of the suit land measuring 7 kanals 18 Marlas for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-. A sum of Rs. 80,000/- was paid as earnest money by the plaintiffs-respondents and the balance amount of sale consideration was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed which was fixed as 15.12.1996. The said Bir Singh had since died. According to the plaintiffs- respondents, they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. The further case of the plaintiffs-respondents is that before the date fixed for execution R.S.A.No. 3372 of 2009(O&M) {3} and registration of the sale deed, they requested defendant- appellant No. 1 to get the sale deed executed and registered in terms of the agreement of sale dated 1.1.1996. The date 15.12.1996 fixed for execution and registration of the sale deed as per the agreement to sell in question, was a holiday being Sunday and, therefore, prior to the said date, the plaintiffs- respondents requested defendant-appellant no. 1 to come to the office of Sub Registrar, Kurukshetra, on 16.12.1996 to get the sale deed executed and registered. The plaintiffs-respondents remained present in the office of Sub -Registrar, Thaneshar on 16.12.1996 along with the balance sale consideration and registration etc. expenses but defendant-appellant No. 1 did not turn up and turned dishonest. Thereafter, again, the plaintiffs- respondents requested defendant-appellant No. 1 to honour the agreement to sell and execute and get registered the sale deed on receipt of balance sale consideration but she put off the matter, hence the present suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 1.1.1996. 3. The said suit was contested by the defendants-appellants. In the written statement, various preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, estoppel and cause of action, were taken. On merits, it was inter alia, pleaded that defendant-appellant No. 1 never executed the alleged agreement to sell dated 1.1.996 and the same is forged and fabricated document. It was further pleaded that agreement to sell in question was fabricated by the plaintiffs-respondents in R.S.A.No. 3372 of 2009(O&M) {4} collusion with one Ishwar Chand son of Kishori Lal, Commission Agent, Grain Market, Kurukshetra. It was further pleaded that defendant-appellant no. 1 and her deceased husband Bir Singh were illiterate persons. The plaintiffs- respondents and said Ishwar Singh were close friends. The defendant-appellant No. 12 and her husband used to sell their agricultural produce in the commission agency of said Ishwar Chand. It was further pleaded that said Ishwar Chand had obtained thumb impressions of defendant-appellant no. 1 and her husband Bir Singh on various blank papers on the pretest of getting them bank loan. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs-respondents and said Ishwar Chand had forged and fabricated an agreement to sell dated 8.8.1995 and general power of attorney deed dated 8.8.1995 purporting to have been executed b y deceased Bir Singh in favour of defendant- appellant No. 1, is wife. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs-respondents had also succeeded to get sale deed dated 1.1.1996 executed from defendant-appellant No. 1 by way of fraud, in respect of land measuring 16 kanals. It was further pleaded that by filing a separate suit, defendants-appellants had challenged the said sale deed dated 1.1.1996which suit was pending decision. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs- respondents had also filed a suit against the defendants- appellants for possession of land measuring 16 kanals which was also pending decision and both the said suits had been consolidated. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs- R.S.A.No. 3372 of 2009(O&M) {5} respondents never disclosed in their written statement filed by them in the civil suit filed by the defendants-appellants, about the agreement to sell in question dated 1.1.1996. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs -respondents also did not disclose the factum of the present agreement to sell in question in their previous suit for possession which was filed against the defendants-appellants. It was further pleaded that defendant- appellant No. 1 did not receive even a penny on account of earnest money. It was further pleaded that question of the plaintiffs-respondents being ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement did not arise. Other plaint averments were denied and controverted and it was prayed that the suit may be dismissed.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the agreement dated 1.1.1996 was executed among the parties as alleged? OPP (2)Whether if issue No. 1 is proved then, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of possession on the basis of specific performance of contract as prayed for ? OPP (3)Whether the present suit is not maintainable ?OPD (4)Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (5)Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD (6)Relief. R.S.A.No. 3372 of 2009(O&M) {6} After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 1.1.1996. As per the agreement to sell, Bir Singh was owner of the property in question. Bir Singh had executed the agreement to sell in question in favour of the plaintiffs through his wife Dhanno Devi- defendant No.1 being his general power of attorney holder. The sale deed was to be executed on 15.12.1996. In order to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell in question , plaintiffs examined PW-1 Raghbir Chand Gupta, deed writer who deposed with regard to the execution of the agreement to sell, in question and receipt of earnest money of Rs. 80,000/- by Dhanno Devi. Plaintiff No. 2 -Shamsher Singh himself appeared in the witness box as PW-4 and deposed as per the contents of the plaint. In order to establish that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, they proved on record their affidavits dated 16.12.1996 to the effect that they had remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar for execution of the sale deed but the vendors had failed to appear to perform their part of the contract. Defendant No. 1, on the other hand, had not denied her thumb impression on the agreement to sell but had taken the plea that her thumb impressions were obtained on blank paper. However, the said plea of the defendants could not be substantiated by them by leading cogent evidence in this regard. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence on record had given a finding of fact that the execution of the agreement to sell was duly proved. The plaintiffs had filed the suit within a period of limitation. In these circumstances, the findings of fact arrived at R.S.A.No. 3372 of 2009(O&M) {7} by the courts below calls for no interference by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 17, 2009 PARAMJIT