RSA No. 4506 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4506 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.5.2011. Gurmit Singh .......Appellant Vs. Tek Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. B.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.2.1996. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that Hakam Singh was owner of the land measuring 6 Kanals 18 Marlas. After his death, defendant inherited the suit property. The defendant executed an agreement to sell dated 14.2.1996 in favour of the plaintiff regarding the said land. The sale consideration was ` 96,000/- and out of the same, plaintiff had paid ` 80,000/- to the defendant towards earnest money. Plaintiff had always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but defendant had failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant, in his written statement, denied the RSA No. 4506 of 2010 (O&M) -2- contentions in the plaint. It was averred that defendant was an illiterate and blind person. The agreement to sell in question had not been executed by the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance? OPP 2. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 8.9.2008, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld, in appeal filed by the plaintiff, by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed suit claiming specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.2.1996. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined PW-1 Kewal Singh and PW-2 Mithu Singh. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-3. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case. The agreement to sell in question was a result of fraud. A perusal of the agreement to sell Ex. P-1 (shown during the course of arguments) reveals that the sale consideration was fixed at ` 96,000/- and ` 80,000/- were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in advance towards advancement of loan. A perusal of the agreement to sell further reveals that it has also been RSA No. 4506 of 2010 (O&M) -3- mentioned that nothing remained due. 14.2.1996 was fixed as the date for execution of the sale deed. These facts make the agreement to sell in question a doubtful document. The possibility that the thumb impressions of the defendant might have been obtained by the plaintiff by taking the advantage of the fact that the defendant was blind, cannot be ruled out. In case, the entire sale consideration had been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, there was no occasion for fixing the date for execution of the sale deed after three years. It has been noticed by the learned trial court that the witnesses, examined by the plaintiff, were closely related to him and this also made the execution of the agreement to sell in question doubtful. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 10, 2011 Gurpreet