RSA No.3779 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3779 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:October 22, 2009 Randhir Singh ...........Appellant Versus Pirthi Pal and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.R.P.Dhir, Advocate for the appellant. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff filed a suit for ordering the defendants to specifically perform their part of the contract of agreement to sell dated 5.12.2001. The suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Garshankar vide judgment and decree dated 7.5.2007. The appeal filed by the defendant-Randhir Singh was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur dated 21.2.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant-Randhir Singh. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment reads as under:- “2. In brief the case of the plaintiff was that defendants No.1 and RSA No.3779 of 2009 (O&M) 2 2 had entered into an agreement to sell on 5.12.2001, for sale of 19 marlas of land, out of land measuring 1 kanal 18 marlas, comprised in khasra no.1235, as per jamabandi for the year 1998- 99, situated in village Nadalon. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.62,000/-, out of which the defendants had received Rs.10,000/- as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement to sell and it was agreed that sale deed would be executed on or before 15.6.2002. Defendant No.2 was not present when the agreement to sell dated 5.12.2001 was executed, due to some family circumstances, but she agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 15.6.2002. Plaintiff sent registered legal notice to the defendants through his counsel, to come to the office of Sub Registrar, Mahilpur on 13.6.2003 for the execution of the sale deed in favour of plaintiff as 14.6.2002 and 16.6.2002 were observed as holidays. Plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Mahilpur on 13.6.2002 and 17.6.2002 alongwith balance sale consideration and also got his presence marked before Sub Registrar, but none of the defendants came there. Plaintiff received a reply dated 17.6.2002 to his notice dated 3.6.2002, in which the defendants did not admit the claim of the plaintiff. Plaintiff remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he is still ready and willing to do so. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants No. 1 and 2 alongwith other co-sharers sold the land in dispute to Davinder Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, defendant No.3, as per sale deed 1.4.2004, for a consideration of Rs.72,500/-. RSA No.3779 of 2009 (O&M) 3 3. Defendants no. 1 and 2 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit, which is not maintainable and suit is bad for mis-joinder of defendant no.2, who has been dragged unnecessarily in the suit as she never agreed to sell the suit land. It was further stated that suit was hit by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as previous suit filed by plaintiff for permanent injunction was dismissed. On merits, it has been denied that defendants ever agreed to sell the suit land for Rs.62,000/- as alleged. In fact, defendant no.1 had borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff in the month of December,2001 and agreed to return the amount within six months. Plaintiff brought defendant no.1 to Mahilpur for execution of a pronote and receipt. Defendant No.1 had good relations with plaintiff and also faith in him, who himself got scribed a document and obtained the signatures of defendant no.1 alleging that it was a pronote and receipt. Defendant no.1 had signed the documents at the instance of the plaintiff treating the same as pronote and receipt, without reading the contents thereof. Further plea has been taken that suit land is abadi land and rate of such land is not less than Rs.10,000/- per marla and a man of prudent mind cannot agree to sell the land at such a low price. Defendant no.2 is neither signatory to the alleged agreement to sell nor she ever authorized defendant no.1 to execute any document on her behalf and,therefore, the agreement is not binding on her. 4. Plaintiff filed replication, reiterating the averments made in the plaint and denying the averments made in the written RSA No.3779 of 2009 (O&M) 4 statement. Defendant no.3 was duly served through munadi notice. None appeared on his behalf when he was proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 20.9.2004 by the learned trial Court.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- "1. Whether the defendants entered into agreement to sell with plaintiff on 5.2.2001, if so, its effect ?OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.10,000/- along with interest from 5.12.2001 till date at the rate of 1% per month by way of alternative relief?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 4.Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of defendant no.2?OPD 5.Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 6. Whether suit is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC?OPD 7. Relief". After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 5.12.2001. The case of the plaintiff was that the agreement to sell in question was entered between the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 on 5.12.2001 with regard to 19 Marlas of land for a sum of Rs.62,000/-. Rs. 10,000/- were paid as earnest money by the plaintiff. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.6.2002. Plaintiff remained present in the Office of the Registrar for execution of the RSA No.3779 of 2009 (O&M) 5 sale deed but the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined PW2 Ram Murti, attesting witness to the agreement to sell, PW3 Bhupinder Singh, Registration Clerk and himself appeared in the witness box as PW4. Plaintiff proved on record his affidavit (Exhibit P4) to substantiate his plea that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Defendants No.1 and 2, while appearing in the witness box, denied the execution of the agreement to sell. The Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record held that the agreement to sell (Exhibit P1) was duly signed by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1, in his cross-examination, identified his signatures on Exhibit P1. He also admitted that plaintiff had served notice upon him and his wife for execution of the sale deed. Defendant No.1 further admitted that he was owner of 19 marlas of land situated in village Nadalon. The case of defendant No.1 further was that he had taken loan of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff and was made to sign on Exhibit P1 alleging it to be a pronote and receipt. However, the said plea of defendant No.1 was rightly disbelieved by the Courts below as the plaintiff is a Graduate and could differentiate between pronote and receipt and agreement to sell. Plaintiff, on the other hand, had proved the due execution of the agreement to sell. However, the agreement to sell in question was not signed by defendant No.2 Baljit Kaur. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the agreement to sell in question had not been executed by defendant No.2 but had only been executed by defendant No.1. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance of agreement to sell for land measuring 9½ marlas. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second RSA No.3779 of 2009 (O&M) 6 appeal which would warrant interference by this Court . Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge October 22, 2009 arya