RSA No.4989 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4989 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 19,2011 Vijay Kumar ...........Appellant Versus Satish Chand ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.V.D.Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 7.7.1997. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that defendant had agreed to sell the shop in question to the plaintiff on 7.7.1997. In this regard, an agreement to sell was duly executed between the parties. Out of the total sale consideration of ` 2,50,000/-, ` 1,00,000/- was paid as earnest money to the defendant at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.01.1998, However, the date for execution of the sale deed was later extended to 31.3.1998 and a writing in this regard was effected on the back side of the agreement to sell. On the stipulated date for execution of the sale deed, plaintiff remained RSA No.4989 of 2009 (O&M) 2 present in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Jagadhri but the defendant failed to appear to execute the sale deed. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant in his written statement denied the execution of the alleged agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. It was averred that the agreement to sell in question was a fabricated and forged document and was not binding on the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of the agreement to sell dt. 7.7.1997 regarding the suit property?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit?OPD 3.Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 7.4.2006, the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.7.1997 was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide judgment and decree dated 21.2.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed the suit basing his claim on execution of agreement to sell dated 7.7.1997 in his favour by the defendant. In order to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell, plaintiff examined Bhagwat Parsad, Scribe as PW3 and Anil Kumar, attesting witness as PW5. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW4. The said witnesses deposed qua the execution of the agreement to sell and payment of the RSA No.4989 of 2009 (O&M) 3 earnest money of ` 1,00,000/- to the defendant by the plaintiff. The attesting witness as well as the plaintiff also proved the due execution of the writing qua extension of the date for execution of the sale deed on 15.1.1998. Since the agreement to sell in question had been duly proved by the plaintiff, the same could not be discarded merely because the names of the witnesses had not been typed by the Scribe. Attesting witnesses have duly signed the agreement to sell in question. There was nothing on record to suggest that the agreement to sell in question does not bear the signatures of the defendant-Vijay Kumar. The defendant, on the other hand, failed to establish that the agreement to sell in question was a result of forgery. The fact that the agreement to sell in question has been typed in single space would also not render it doubtful as it was for the Scribe to type the same in single space or double space. Moreover the signatures of the defendant on the agreement to sell as well as the writing on 15.1.1998 qua extension of date for execution of sale deed appear at the appropriate place. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge January 19, 2011 arya