RSA No. 2347 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2347 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.5.2011. Smt. Giano .......Appellant Vs. Mohinder Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.4.2004. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that defendant had executed the agreement to sell in question in favour of the plaintiff qua 15 Marlas of land. The sale consideration was settled between the parties at ` 3,00,000/-. Plaintiff had paid ` 52,000/- to the defendant towards earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on 6.6.2004 on payment of balance sale consideration. The plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar on 2.6.2004 and 7.6.2004 to perform his part of the contract but the defendant had failed to appear. The stipulated date for execution of the sale deed i.e. 6.6.2004, was Sunday. Defendant, in his written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. The execution of the agreement to sell in question by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff was denied. It RSA No. 2347 of 2011 (O&M) -2- was averred that the agreement to sell in question was a fabricated document. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant has entered into an agreement to sell dated 7.4.2004 with the plaintiff and has received a sum of Rs. 52,000/- as earnest money? OPP 1(a). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as owner by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.4.2004? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 1,04,000/- in the alternative? OPP 4. If issue No.3 is proved then whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes at what rate? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land to any one else except the plaintiff? OPP 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 8. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 18.3.2009 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal filed by the defendant through his RSA No. 2347 of 2011 (O&M) -3- legal representative by the District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.2011. Hence, the present appeal by the widow of defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.4.2004. In order to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell in question, plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and examined Bakhshish Chand as PW-1 and Baljit Singh as PW-2, attesting witnesses of the agreement to sell in question. Plaintiff also examined the scribe of the agreement to sell Amit Chetal as PW-4. The said witnesses deposed qua the due execution of the agreement to sell in question. The defendant, on the other hand, had failed to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff qua execution of the agreement to sell in question. Defendant had failed to establish that the agreement to sell in question was a result of fraud or misrepresentation. In order to establish that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, plaintiff proved on record his affidavits Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3. The stipulated date fixed for execution of the sale deed i.e. 6.6.2004 was Sunday and therefore, the plaintiff had remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar on 2.6.2004 and 7.6.2004. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 25, 2011 Gurpreet