IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4892 of 2009 Date of Decision : December 23, 2009 Santosh Kaur ....Appellant Versus Sukhmander Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. J.S.Brar, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for possession through specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.1.2006, was decreed by the trial Court on 4.4.2008. Aggrieved of the same, the defendant-appellant filed the first appeal, which was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. She is now before this Court by way of a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In their plaint, the plaintiffs-respondents averred that the defendant entered into an agreement on 21.1.2006 to sell 12 kanals of land, being half share of 24 kanals, at the rate of Rs.4,65,000/- per killa. Out of the total price worked out as Rs.6,97,500/-, the plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- as earnest money at the time of execution of the R.S.A. No. 4892 of 2009 -2- agreement to sell. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 21.6.2006. The plaintiffs approached the defendant several times to get the sale deed executed but it had no effect on her. Even on 21.6.2006 the plaintiffs remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Kotkpura through out the day but the defendant did not turn up. They served a registered notice dated 23.6.2006 upon the defendant. Though the plaintiffs remained ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement yet the defendant did not come forward and, thus, they filed the present suit for possession and specific performance. While opposing the suit, the defendant-appellant submitted that she never entered into any such agreement to sell her land nor she received any amount from the plaintiffs. Infact, she was in need of money. She took a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiffs, which was to be returned by her alongwith interest amount of Rs.30,000/-. The plaintiffs got her thumb impression on blank stamp papers. Lateron, she repaid the entire amount of loan in the presence of the respectables of the village but when she demanded back her blank stamp papers, the plaintiffs did not return the same on the ground that the same had been misplaced somewhere. The plaintiffs forged and fabricated the agreement in question on the blank stamp papers. The market value of the property in dispute was very high and there was no reason for her to have agreed to sell her land at a meagre rate. R.S.A. No. 4892 of 2009 -3- After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on the file, learned Courts below concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled for the decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.1.2006. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant did not enter into any agreement to sell her land to the respondents. Rather, she had taken an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as loan on 21.1.2006, which she had to repay by 21.6.2006 alongwith interest amount of Rs.30,000/-. At that time, her thumb impressions were obtained on blank stamp papers. Lateron, the appellant repaid the entire amount of loan but the blank stamp papers were not returned by the respondents. Instead, those were misused by forging and fabricating the agreement in question. From the testimonies of PW1 Yogesh Kumar, Deed Writer, PW3 Lakhvir Singh, who was one of the attesting witnesses of the agreement in question and one of the plaintiffs, namely, Sukhmander Singh, who stepped into the witness box as PW2, it stood proved that the appellant agreed to sell the suit land to the respondents on 21.1.2006 at the rate of Rs.4,65,000/- per killa. The total price worked out was Rs.6,97,500/- out of which an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- was received by the appellant from the respondents as earnest money. On the other hand, the defendant-appellant remained content by examining her son Narinder R.S.A. No. 4892 of 2009 -4- Singh as DW1 besides, herself stepping into the witness box as DW2. Their consistent stand was that no such agreement to sell had been executed by the appellant in favour of the respondents. The appellant has not denied her thumb impressions on the agreement in question. She did not complain to any authority about her thumb impressions having been obtained on blank stamp papers. So much so DW1 Narinder Singh admitted that writing Ex.P2/B as existing on the agreement in question was in his hand. Vide said writing, he recorded that he had read over the contents of the agreement to his mother. He also admitted that Lakhvir Singh and Nirbhai Singh were witnesses of the agreement, which was written near the temple at the shop of Rajesh Kumar where Sukhmander Singh was present on behalf of the vendee and he also signed the same. He also admitted that stamp papers were purchased by his mother and she had thumb marked at the back of the same. Once the execution of the agreement to sell stands proved, the defendant-appellant cannot be heard saying that she never intended to sell the land belonging to her and instead had taken loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiffs. The claim of the defendant that she could not have sold her land at a meagre rate of Rs.4,65,000/- per killa cannot be taken into consideration as there is no material on the file as to what was the prevalent rate of the land in the vicinity of the suit land. R.S.A. No. 4892 of 2009 -5- The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below are based on proper appreciation of the material evidence available on the file. These findings cannot be said to be either perverse or suffering from any illegality and infirmity and, therefore, cannot be disturbed in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. The various substantial questions of law, as framed by learned counsel for the appellant, do not arise for determination. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) December 23, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1