RSA No.3128 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.9267-C of 2008 and RSA No.3128 of 2008 Date of Decision:29.09.2008 Daljit Singh & Ors. ....appellants Versus Satpal Singh .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.H.S.Saggu, Advocate for the appellants **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. CM No.9267-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded in the application, the deficiency of the Court fee is allowed to be made good and delay of 35 days in making the said deficiency good, is condoned. RSA No.3128 of 2008 This is defendants' second appeal, challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff- respondent for specific performance of the agreement has been decreed. Appellants agreed to sell their land measuring 40 kanals @ Rs.2,82,500/- per acre and received earnest money of Rs.2 lacs in presence of witness and executed agreement to sell dated 13.08.2005 and the sale deed was to be executed on 30.12.2005. It was agreed that in case appellants failed to execute the sale deed, then they shall be liable to pay the double amount of the earnest money and in case respondent failed to get the sale deed executed, then the earnest money will be forfeited to the appellants. It was also agreed that in case appellants failed to execute RSA No.3128 of 2008 2 the sale deed, then the respondent shall have a right to execute the sale deed through Court. The date of execution of sale deed was extended to 30.01.2006 with mutual consent of the parties. Appellants received another amount of Rs.4 lacs as earnest money. A writing to this effect was executed on 27.12.2005 at the back of agreement to sell. Again on 28.01.2006 date of execution of sale deed was extended to 25.02.2006 with mutual consent of the parties. A writing to this effect was executed on the back of the agreement to sell. The appellants received additional earnest money of Rs.3,50,000/- from the respondent. In this way, appellants received total earnest money of Rs.9,50,000/- from the respondent. It is further averred that on 27.02.2006 respondent after informing the appellants to get the sale deed executed in their favour, went to the office of Sub-Registrar, Talwandi Sabo, as 25.02.2006 and 26.02.2006 were Saturday and Sunday. But the appellants did not appear, rather respondent got marked his presence before the Sub-Registrar, Talwandi Sabo on 27.02.2006 by filing application. It is further averred that respondent was and is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It is further averred that appellants are conspiring to alienate the suit property to some other persons to cause loss to the respondent. Defendants appeared and contested the suit. In the written statement they had taken the legal objections that the plaintiff has locus standi, non-maintainability of the suit, the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and that the plaintiff has failed to get the sale deed and registered by due date i.e.30.12.2005, defendants never got extended the date for execution of sale deed and the alleged writings of extension are forged and fabricated and without consideration. It is further alleged that defendants received only Rs.2 lacs and thereafter, they did not receive any amount from the plaintiff. It is also alleged that suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, they stated that RSA No.3128 of 2008 3 they received Rs.2 lacs only from the plaintiff and denied having executed writings dated 27.12.2005 and 28.01.2006 on the back of the agreement to sell. All other allegations levelled in the plaint were denied by the defendants and prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. After conclusion of evidence by parties and hearing arguments, learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs, as aforesaid, vide impugned judgment and decree. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree, appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide its judgment and decree dated 23.05.2008. Still not satisfied, the defendants have filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the evidence on record which has resulted into perversity of findings in the impugned judgment and decrees. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants never extended the date of execution of the agreement nor received any sale consideration on 27.12.2005 and 28.01.2006. It was further argued that both the writings i.e.27.12.2005 and 28.01.2006 are forged and fabricated. He has further argued that it was for the plaintiffs to prove the extensions in accordance with the law which they have miserably failed and therefore their suit is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel has further argued that the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, upheld the judgment of the learned trial Court without considering the evidence on record and the grounds taken up before him by the appellants. He did not give any findings on the points raised by the appellants in their defence as was laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Ram Niwas vs.Bano 2000(6) SCC 685. RSA No.3128 of 2008 4 However, I find no force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Both the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that vide Ex.P-2, the date was extended up to 30.01.2006 regarding the execution of the sale deed and Rs.4 lacs were received vide this endorsement and subsequently, vide Ex.P-3 the date was further extended from 30.01.2006 to 25.02.2006 after receiving Rs.3.50 lacs. Moreover, there was a specific issue i.e.issue No.7 which is as under: Issue No.7 Whether writing qua extension of time has been forged and fabricated and is inadmissible in evidence as alleged, if so its affect? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon the appellants. However, the appellants have failed to prove this issue. Thus, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is without any substance. The Courts below have properly appreciated the facts of the case in hand. There is a report of the Handwriting and Finger Print expert on the file to show that the signatures were rightly appended on these writings. While dismissing the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court has observed as under: “ The appeal seems to have been preferred just for the sake of preferring an appeal, otherwise, there is no point to disbelieve Ex.P-2 or Ex.P-3. The manner of putting signatures, the ink/pen used therein and while making comparison of the same with the signatures in the agreement to sell, clearly shows that these are the genuine signatures of the appellants. It cannot be believed that the signatures were either not appended or appended without anything written above the same, or without receiving any sum as depicted therein.” For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the RSA No.3128 of 2008 5 appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 29.09.2008 neenu