RSA No. 4063 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4063 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 20 , 2009 Gurdev Singh ...... Appellant Versus Amrik Singh ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Amit Jain , Advocate for the respondent. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the respondent for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22.9.95. The learned lower Appellate Court held that the respondent-plaintiff had succeeded in proving the agreement to sell while the appellant-defendant had not even appeared in the witness box to testify about his plea regarding the fraud which allegedly was practiced on him (as per the appellant, at the time when he admittedly executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent, he was made to sign certain blank papers which were subsequently used to fabricate the RSA No. 4063 of 2007(O&M) 2 agreement to sell and a Will). The following questions have been proposed:- 1. Whether the appreciation of evidence and of law applicable to such cases by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala was simply perverse? 2. Whether the execution of the alleged agreement of sale Ex.P1 and the alleged Will dated 22.9.1995 and the subsequent execution of the General Power of Attorney by the defendant on 18.10.1995 do not ipso established that the entire case set up by the plaintiff was false and fraudulent? 3. That the alleged agreement of sale is dated 22.9.1995 and the alleged General Power of Attorney is dated 18.10.1995,how is it that in the agreement of sale dated 22.9.1995 it stands mentioned that the General Power of Attorney shall not be cancelled when the General Power of Attorney had come into existence much later on 18.10.1995? 4. Whether this Hon'ble Court can interfere and upset the findings of fact of the first Appellate Court if the evidence is misconstrued and mis-appreciated by the first Appellate Court and the well reasoned and unassailable judgment of the learned trial court was said to be set aside by the first appellate court without laying a firm basis for the same? 5. Whether the findings of the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala suffer from perversity because he did not appreciate that the alleged agreement of sale was 22.9.1995 and he did not appreciate that where was the necessity to execute the Will by the defendant on the same day and as to why the alleged General Power of Attorney was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 18.10.1995 and as to how under what circumstances it stood mentioned in the agreement of sale that the General Power of Attorney would not b cancelled when on 22.9.1995 the General Power of Attorney dated 18.10.1995 was not even in existence? 6. Whether the execution of the alleged agreement of sale by RSA No. 4063 of 2007(O&M) 3 the defendant can be said to have been proved merely because the signatures of the defendant allegedly existing on the same and the plaintiff had failed to establish that the defendant had in fact executed this alleged agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff? It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of facts. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to issue No. 5-A and the findings thereon by the learned trial court. Issue No.5-A is to the following effect:- “5-A Whether the plaintiff has obtained the signatures of defendant on blank papers at the time of execution of GPA and misused those papers for preparing the agreement of sale?” Learned counsel has pointed out that this issue was not pressed by the appellant- defendant whereas in fact, the whole case of the appellant-defendant hinges around the fact whether the respondent had obtained his signatures on blank papers at the time when the General Power of Attorney had been executed. In the circumstances I am constrained to hold that learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to establish that the findings recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court on the above mentioned questions are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence which renders them so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 C.P.C. Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 20 , 2009 sunita