RSA No. 3359 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 3359 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.03.2011. Piara Lal .......Appellant Vs. Rachpal Singh and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate for the respondents. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.1.1997. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that defendant owned the house in dispute. On 14.1.1997, defendant agreed to sell the house in dispute to the plaintiffs for a sale consideration of ` 3,50,000/-. An agreement to sell, in this regard, was reduced into writing. ` 2,00,000/- were paid by the plaintiff No.2 to the defendant towards earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 12.1.1998, on payment of balance sale consideration of ` 1,50,000/-. The date for execution of the sale deed was later on extended from 12.1.1998 to 12.1.1999. An endorsement was made, in this regard, on the agreement to sell. RSA No. 3359 of 2005 -2- Plaintiffs had always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Plaintiff No.2 remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 12.1.1999 but the defendant failed to appear. Hence, the suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendant, in his written statement, denied the execution of the agreement to sell in question. It was averred that the defendant had borrowed ` 2,00,000/- from the plaintiffs on 7.8.1996 as he wanted to send his son abroad. The said amount had been returned to the plaintiffs along with interest on 6.8.1997. Defendant had also handed over the sale deed of the house to the plaintiffs as measure of security. The said sale deed was, however, not handed back to the defendant. The agreement to sell in question was a forged and fabricated document. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant entered into an agreement dated 14.1.1997 to sell the property in favour of the plaintiff? OPP 2. In case issue No.1 is proved, whether the agreement has been forged and fabricated by the plaintiffs as alleged by the defendant? OPD 3. Whether in alternative, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for the recovery of Rs. 3,50,000/-? OPP 4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of the parties? OPD 5. Relief.” RSA No. 3359 of 2005 -3- Vide judgment and decree dated 3.5.2004, Civil Judge (Senior Division) decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of ` 2,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of agreement till the date of decree and with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and the plaintiffs preferred a cross appeal/objections. Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 8.4.2005 allowed the cross appeal/objections, filed by the plaintiffs and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell in question. The appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiffs had filed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell in question. In order to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell, plaintiffs examined Surjit Singh, one of the attesting witness to the agreement as PW-1. The said witness deposed qua the due execution of the agreement to sell. Plaintiffs also examined Satish Kumar, Deed Writer as PW-3, who had scribed the agreement to sell, in support of their case. Plaintiffs appeared in the witness box and deposed as per the contents of the plaint. Plaintiffs also examined Fateh Chand Sharma, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert as PW-5, in the rebuttal evidence, to substantiate their plea that the agreement to sell in question was duly signed by the defendant. Defendant had taken the plea that the agreement RSA No. 3359 of 2005 -4- to sell in question was a forged and fabricated document. However, the defendant had failed to establish the said plea. The plaintiffs proved on record that the agreement to sell in question was duly signed by the defendant. It was further proved by the plaintiffs that the endorsement qua extension of the date of sale deed was also duly signed by the defendant. Defendant, however, failed to rebut the said evidence. Plaintiffs further established that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. In this regard, plaintiffs proved on record application Ex.P-3. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the agreement to sell in question was duly executed by the defendant. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs were liable to be granted decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell in question. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 11, 2011 Gurpreet