Regular Second Appeal No. 937 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 937 of 2010 Date of decision : March 22, 2010 Avtar Singh ....Appellant versus Neelam Goyal ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. K.S. Sekhon, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by defendant Avtar Singh having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Neealm Goyal respondent filed suit against defendant-appellant for possession of the suit land by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.5.2001 alleging that the defendant vide aforesaid agreement agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for Rs 2,62,500/- and received Rs 2,50,000/- as earnest money. Sale deed was to be executed upto 15.11.2001. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform her part of the contract but the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract. The defendant denied the averments of the plaintiff and inter Regular Second Appeal No. 937 of 2010 -2- alia, pleaded that the alleged agreement is forged and fabricated. Plaintiff's father moved a false application against the defendant who was summoned by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nabha on 21.3.2003, 25.3.2003 and 29.3.2003 at the instance of plaintiff's father. Under threat, signatures of the defendant were obtained there on some blank stamp papers. The defendant does not even know the plaintiff. The defendant filed suit against the plaintiff and her father on 30.3.2003. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 15.1.2008 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 19.10.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that signatures of defendant-appellant had been obtained on blank stamp papers in the office of DSP, Nabha at the instance of plaintiff's father. The impugned agreement was forged and fabricated on the said stamp papers. This plea of the defendant has been negatived by both the courts below after appreciation of evidence. It is significant to mention that according to the defendant's version, he had filed a suit against plaintiff and her father more than a year before the filing of the instant suit taking the same version that defendant's signatures had been obtained under threat in the office of DSP, Nabha at the instance of plaintiff's father. However, the defendant has also alleged in the instant suit that he did not even know the plaintiff. It is Regular Second Appeal No. 937 of 2010 -3- beyond comprehension why the defendant filed his suit against plaintiff as well when she was not in picture in any manner when the signatures of defendant were allegedly obtained on blank stamp papers in the office of DSP, Nabha. It would depict that the defendant very well knew that there was agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and for this reason, the defendant filed his earlier suit not only against plaintiff's father but also against plaintiff herself. If the defendant had to file that suit on the plea that his signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers in the office of DSP, Nabha at the instance of plaintiff's father, the said suit could be filed against the plaintiff's father only and not against the plaintiff as well. Thus, the defendant's version is inherently un-reliable. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that if the plaintiff had advanced Rs 4,70,000/- to the defendant on 15.2.2001 as loan and the said amount had not been returned, it is not explained why the plaintiff paid another amount of Rs 2,50,000/- to the defendant at the time of alleged agreement. The contention although apparently attractive is without any merit. The impugned agreement is dated 14.5.2001. The said agreement was executed just three months after the loan of Rs 4,70,000/- had been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. It would mean that at the time of execution of agreement, there might not have been any dispute regarding repayment of the loan of Rs 4,70,000/- by the defendant to the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff did not pay the amount of Rs 2,50,000/- at the time of agreement as further loan to the defendant. On the other hand, amount of Rs 2,50,000/- was paid as earnest money being part of sale consideration for the suit land. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the Regular Second Appeal No. 937 of 2010 -4- plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of the impugned agreement by the defendant. The contention cannot be accepted because the plaintiff's father has appeared in the witness box and stated that the aforesaid agreement was executed by the defendant. Plaintiff's father was present at the time of agreement on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also examined the scribe of the agreement who is a regular deed writer. He has also proved execution of the agreement by the plaintiff. It is also significant to mention that the defendant and the witnesses affixed their signatures even against entry in the register of the deed writer regarding the agreement. These circumstances would falsify the defendant's stand that his signatures had been obtained on blank stamp papers in the office of DSP, Nabha. The defendant has not alleged that his signatures had also been obtained in the register of the deed writer. In addition to the aforesaid, the plaintiff has also examined stamp vendor as witness and he proved that the defendant had purchased the stamp papers for the impugned agreement. Even entry in register of the stamp vendor was signed by the defendant. It would again depict that the defendant had executed the impugned agreement after having purchased stamp papers for the same. It would falsify the defendant's version that his signatures had been obtained on blank stamp papers in the office of DSP, Nabha. There is no explanation regarding defendant's signatures in the registers of deed writer and stamp vendor regarding execution of the agreement and regarding purchase of stamp papers for the agreement. Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence have arrived at concurrent finding against the defendant. The said finding cannot be said Regular Second Appeal No. 937 of 2010 -5- to be perverse or illegal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 22, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'