RSA No.3367 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No.3367 of 2008 Date of decision: January 14,2009 Sita Ram and others ..Appellants. Versus Om Parkash ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.M.L.Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.H.K.Brinda, Advocate for the Caveator .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is defendants’ second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell was decreed with costs. As per the averments made in the plaint, the defendant-appellant in the month of July, 2002 was in dire need of money and approached the plaintiff and intended to sell their land in dispute. The deal was finalized at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per marla and the agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 11.7.2002. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 85,000/- as earnest money to the defendant in the presence of the witnesses and the defendants agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on or before 10.6.2003 after receiving the remaining sale consideration. The defendants did not turn up to perform their part of agreement to sell on the stipulated date. Legal notice was also sent to the defendants. However, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence the present suit. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, it has been pleaded that the alleged agreement dated 11.7.2002 is false, forged and fabricated document, having no value in the eyes of law. It is further pleaded that RSA No.3367 of 2008 2 the plaintiff has approached the defendants to stand surety for the plaintiff for obtaining loan from the bank for Karyana Store and the defendants being on friendly terms with the plaintiff agreed to stand surety and in good faith signed blank papers. It is denied that the defendants ever executed the alleged agreement dated 11.7.2002, or they received the alleged amount of Rs. 85,000/- as an advance money from the plaintiff. It is apprehended that the said blank stamp paper signed by the defendants might have been used for the preparation and fabrication of alleged agreement dated 11.7.2002. It has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed with costs being false and frivolous. After going through the pleadings, evidence and documents on record, the trial Court held that the defendants executed the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property in a suit for specific performance of the agreement. While decreeing the suit, the trial Court also held that the defendants failed to prove on record that the agreement to sell is false and fabricated document. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ropar vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.1.2008. While dismissing the appeal, the lower Appellate Court observed as under:- “It has been argued by the counsel for the appellants that agreement to sell dated 11.7.2002 is false and fabricated document. In fact the plaintiff/respondent had approached the appellants to stand surety for the plaintiff and obtained the signatures on blank paper. Normally any person standing surety for any person then there can be signatures on the document by one person as a surety but it cannot be said that all the defendants signed the document as surety. Moreover, the papers of the bank are in a printed form whereas document in question is not a printed form. The defendants are educated persons; therefore, they cannot say that they did not know the contents of the document. Otherwise RSA No.3367 of 2008 3 the defendants admitted their signature on the document but they say that they signed the document on blank papers. Normally, no person signs on a blank paper but once the signatures have been admitted then the onus shifts upon the defendants to explain how their signatures appeared on the documents. Although they have stated that their signatures have been obtained by way of misrepresentation for standing surety but that plea does not sound to the reason. The attesting witnesses and scribe of the document have appeared in favour of the plaintiff and they have stated that the document was scribed in presence of the witnesses and the defendants had signed the same after admitting the same as correct. In case the signatures of the defendants have been obtained on blank paper then there can be difference in spacing but in case we go through the agreement in question there does not seems any irregular spacing in the lines of the agreement. Therefore, this plea of the defendants that they signed on the blank paper also does not seems to be reasonable.” Still not satisfied the defendants have filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the alleged agreement to sell dated 11.7.2002 is a result of fraud, fabrication and without any consideration and the respondent was not entitled to any relief under the Specific Relief Act. While passing the impugned judgment and decrees, the courts below have misread and misconstrued the material evidence on record which has vitiated the whole findings and therefore, the impugned judgment and decrees are liable to be reversed in favour of the appellants. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. I find no merit in this appeal. The courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the execution of the agreement to sell in question has been duly proved and there is no evidence on record that the same is a RSA No.3367 of 2008 4 result of any fraud or fabrication, the courts below have also recorded a finding of fact that the defendant/appellants have failed to prove on record that agreement to sell is a false and fabricated document. Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to challenge the findings of fact so recorded by the courts below. Thus, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decrees passed by the courts below. No substantial question of law arises. No merit. Dismissed. January 14,2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE