R.S.A.No. 1932 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1932 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.1.2011 Suman Rani ......Appellant Versus Tarsem Lal and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Manish Parbhakar, Advocate, for the respondents No.1 and 2. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs-respondents No.1 and 2 filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.2.2003. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that the house in dispute was owned and possessed by the defendant. Defendant agreed to sell the house in question to the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 17.2.2003 for a sum of ` 13,40,000/- The sale deed was to be executed on or before R.S.A.No. 1932 of 2010 2 19.8.2003. At the time of execution of agreement to sell, Rs.2,80,000/- were paid by the plaintiffs as earnest money. On the stipulated date, plaintiff No.1 remained present in the office of Sub Registrar but the defendant failed to appear. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. The execution of the agreement to sell or acceptance of earnest money were denied. It was averred that the market value of the house in dispute was more than ` 8,00,000/-. Plaintiff No.1 was having committee transactions with Pardeep Kumar, husband of defendant No.1 and had obtained signatures of defendant No.1 on blank stamp papers and had converted the same into an agreement to sell. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether defendant No.1 executed agreement to sell dated 17.2.2003 in favour of the plaintiff and agreed to sell the house in dispute for a consideration of Rs.3,40,000/- and received Rs.2,80,000/- as earnest money? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs remained ready and willing and still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP 3. Whether the agreement to sell dated 17.2.2003 is result of fraud and misrepresentation and undue influence? OPD R.S.A.No. 1932 of 2010 3 4.Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of specific performance of agreement to sell as prayed for? OPP 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to alternative decree for recovery of Rs.3,40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 3% per month with quarterly rests as prayed for? OPD 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for ? OPD 10. Relief. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.6.2008 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc) Tarn Taran vide judgment and decree dated 5.2.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. In order to prove their case, plaintiffs examined deed writer Jaswant Rai as PW-1. Satnam Singh, attesting witness of the R.S.A.No. 1932 of 2010 4 agreement Ex.P-2, as PW-3. The said witnesses deposed qua due execution of the agreement to sell and payment of earnest money of ` 2,80,000/- to the defendant. Defendant No.1 has not denied her signatures on the agreement to sell but has taken the plea that her signatures were taken on blank papers as her husband was having some committee dealings with the plaintiffs. However, defendant No.1 had failed to establish the said plea. No reliance could be placed on slip mark 'A' as the same was not duly proved . Pardeep Kumar, while appearing in the witness box as DW2, in his cross- examination, deposed that he could not produce any writing qua committee transactions with Tarsem Lal nor could produce any receipt in this regard. Pardeep Kumar had admitted his signatures on the agreement to sell. It is not the case of the defendants that signatures of defendant No.1 and Pardeep Kumar were taken on blank papers. Rather the case of defendant No.1 was that her signatures had been taken on blank papers. Since the agreement to sell is duly signed by defendant No.1 and her husband as a witness, the Courts below rightly held that the due execution of the agreement to sell had been proved by the plaintiffs. Plaintiff Tarsem Lal deposed that he had remained present in the office of Sub Registrar on the stipulated date for execution of the sale deed and had proved affidavit Ex.P-3 in this regard. Thus, the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The Courts below had, thus, rightly decreed R.S.A.No. 1932 of 2010 5 the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 12, 2011 anita