IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2166 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: December 22, 2011 Jag Singh and others .. Appellants Vs. Rajinder .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.S. Hooda, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J The trial court vide judgment dated 6.12.2003 decreed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 13.8.1998, against the defendants (brothers and sisters of Mange Ram, the executant of the agreement). The appeal against the said judgment was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, on 9.3.2006. Now this regular second appeal has been preferred by the defendants. The factual matrix of the case is that on 13.8.1998, Mange Ram being the original owner of the land measuring 5 kanals as fully detailed in the heading of the plaint had agreed to sell the said land for a sum of `82,500/-. After receiving a sum of `35000/- as an earnest money, he executed an agreement to sell and stipulated date, for execution of the sale deed, was fixed as 3.6.1999. In the meantime, Mange Ram died on 16.9.1998, issueless. Defendants No.2 and 3 being legally entitled to succeed to his estate were liable to perform the said contract, therefore, the plaintiff had to file the suit against them. Upon notice, the defendants put in appearance and contested the cause by filing written statement. They denied the execution of the agreement to sell and stated that Mange Ram never received any such consideration. Consequently, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. The trial court vide order dated 25.7.2000, framed the following issues : R.S.A. No. 2166 of 2006 -2- *** 1. Whether the predecessor-in-interest of defendant No.1 and 2 Mange Ram executed an agreement for sale of the disputed property on 13.8.1999 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of `82,500/- and received `35,000/- as earnest money?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?OPP 3. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. The plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and examined Ramesh Kumar son of Baldev Deed Writer (PW2), Naresh Kataria, Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert, Gurgaon (PW3) and Ram Mehar Clerk of the office of Sub Registrar (PW4). That apart, he proved the documents i.e. agreement to sell Ex.P1; registered AD card Ex.PW1/A, postal receipt Ex.PW1/B; legal notice Ex.P1/C, photo enlargement of thumb impression of the deceased Mange Ram Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/4; negatives Ex.PW3/5 to Ex.PW5/8; report of the expert Ex.PW3/9, certified copy of vasika No.1679 dated 6.11.1995 Ex.PW4/A, jamabandi for the year 1993-94 Ex.P4/A; legal notice Ex.P4/B; death certificate of Partap Singh one of the marginal witness Ex.P4/C and photo of the death certificate of Mange Ram as mark-A. To the contrary, defendant No.1 appeared in the witness box as DW-1 and after tendering into evidence copy of the jamabandi for the year 1973-74 Ex.P1, copy of the mutation No.2661 dated 12.1.1999 Ex.D2, copy of mutation No.4651 dated 10.6.2002 Ex.D3 closed his evidence. Both the courts observed that the agreement Ex.P1 stands duly proved by the witnesses and the hand writing and finger print expert also after tallying the thumb impressions with the standard thumb impression of Mange Ram opined that the thumb impression of Mange Ram on the disputed documents were identical with the standard thumb impression of Mange Ram. Sufficient documentary evidence has been led by the plaintiff in order to prove that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Since the defendants denied the execution of the agreement, R.S.A. No. 2166 of 2006 -3- *** therefore, it does not lie in their mouth to say that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The sole argument with regard to the non examination of the witnesses to prove the agreement, it is observed that the plaintiff has duly stated that the said document Ex.P1 was executed by Mange Ram after receiving earnest money. The Deed Writer PW-1 also appeared in the witness box and stated that he had drafted agreement to sell between Mange Ram and Rajinder Singh and after reading and explaining the said documents to the parties, they had thumb marked/signed the same. He had also identified his signatures on the agreement Ex.P1. Besides, the Handwriting and Finger Print Expert, has also opined that the questioned thumb impressions of Mange Ram tally with his standard thumb impressions. Thus, the execution of the agreement Ex.P1 stands proved. To the contrary, there is a blatant denial on the part of the defendants which would not in any way help their case. Mange Ram was the owner of the property which devolved upon the defendants No.2 and 3, therefore, there is no obstacle in granting specific performance of the contract. The trial court as well as the first appellate court appear to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. No such illegality or perversity has been pointed out which may enable this court to take different view than what was formed by the courts below. No substantial question of law arises in this case for determination. Dismissed. December 22, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge