IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2607 of 2006 Date of Decision : May 05, 2008 Ram Chand ....Appellant Versus Kashmir Chand .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. S.C. Khunger, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement, filed by Kashmir Chand-respondent, was decreed for the alternative relief of recovery of Rs. 3,50,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of execution of the agreement of sale till the date of the decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the actual realization of the decretal amount. Appeal filed by Ram Chand-appellant was dismissed by learned first appellate Court. Said Ram Chand, thereafter, filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ranjha Ram, father of the appellant, had only borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the respondent, who got his thumb-impression on blank paper. It was only later on that the respondent used the said Regular Second Appeal No. 2607 of 2007 blank paper for forging an agreement to sell and mentioning therein that Ranjha Ram had received an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- from him as earnest money. In support of his plea, the appellant had examined himself as DW2, besides one Jeet Singh as DW1, who was also shown to have appended his signatures on agreement Ex.P.1. As is clear from the judgments of the learned lower Courts, the appellant was unable to state as to when his father had taken Rs. 50,000/- as loan from the respondent. He could only say about the rate of interest, which, according to him, was agreed between respondent and father of the appellant. Father of the appellant was alive at the time when civil suit was pending in the learned lower Court but he did not step into the witness-box to say about his taking loan from the respondent. Agreement Ex.P.1 was not only thumb-marked by the father of the appellant but also signed by the appellant. The stamp paper used for executing agreement Ex.P.1 had been purchased by father of the appellant himself from the Stamp Vendor. The licensed Deed Writer, who had scribed agreement Ex.P.1, appeared as PW5 and proved the signatures/thumb-impressions of the appellant and his father in the register. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that only an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was advanced by the respondent to the father of the appellant. On the other hand, it was an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- which changed hands between the respondent and father of the appellant. It is then submitted by leaned counsel for the appellant that - 2 Regular Second Appeal No. 2607 of 2007 Jeet Singh, who was the other witness of the agreement Ex.P.1 while appearing as DW1 deposed that at the instance of the respondent he appended his signatures on the agreement Ex. P.1 when it was blank. Thereafter, the blank paper was forged and converted into an agreement to sell as if earnest money of Rs. 3,50.000/- had been received. While appearing as DW1, Jeet Singh tendered his affidavit Ex. D.1 wherein it was stated that he appended his signatures on the agreement Ex.P.1 when it was blank and, that too, at the instance of the respondent. No reliance can be placed upon his testimony as he admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know as to what had been written in his affidavit Ex. D.1. According to him, he had only signed the same. No other point has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned lower Courts. None of the substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, arise for determination in the present second appeal. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) May 05, 2008 JUDGE satish - 3 Regular Second Appeal No. 2607 of 2007 Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO - 4