RSA No.57 of 2011 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.57 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision: 30.05.2011 Satpal .. Petitioner Versus Vijay Kumar .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA. Present:- Mr.Jarnail S. Saneta, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * * SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 29.06.2004. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the defendant had agreed to sell his house measuring 3 Marlas to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.2,40,000/- The defendant had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff on 29.06.2004. Rs.1,85,000/- were paid towards earnest money by the plaintiff to the defendant. The sale deed was to be executed on 28.06.2005. On the stipulated date, plaintiff remained present in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Ladwa with the balance sale consideration but the defendant had failed to appear to perform his part of the contract. Hence, suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant, in his written statement, denied the RSA No.57 of 2011 (O & M) ::2:: execution of the agreement to sell in question. It was averred that Rajesh Khurana @ Raju Khurana, who was running a finance company, had advanced Rs.10,000/- as a loan to the defendant in March, 2005. At that time, signatures of the defendant had been obtained on blank stamp papers and the defendant had given 10 blank signed cheques to Rajesh Khurana towards security. Defendant was required to repay loan amount in 13 instalments of Rs.1300/- each. Rajesh Khurana @ Raju Khurana had misutilized the cheque and had withdrawn Rs.2000/- on 30.04.2005, Rs.3100/- on 04.07.2005, Rs.1300/- on 02.08.2005, Rs.2000/- on 03.09.2005, Rs.74000/- on 23.09.2005 and Rs.5000/- on 29.10.2005. A fraud had been committed on the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of suit property by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 29.06.2004? OPP 2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP 3. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 5. Relief. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 05.09.2008 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional RSA No.57 of 2011 (O & M) ::3:: District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that instant appeal deserves dismissal. The plaintiff had filed the suit seeking specific performance of agreement to sell Ex.P-1 dated 29.06.2004. In order to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell in question, plaintiff examined Mam Chand, deed writer and plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-6. Plaintiff also examined I.C. Saini attesting witness to the agreement to sell, as PW-1. The said witnesses deposed qua due execution of the agreement to sell in question. The defendant on the other hand took the plea that he had never executed the agreement to sell in question. In fact, he had borrowed Rs.10,000/- from Rajesh Khurana in March, 2005. The said plea of the defendant-appellant was rightly disbelieved by the Courts below as the agreement to sell in question was executed on 29.06.2004 whereas the loan transaction between the plaintiff and Rajesh Khurana had allegedly occurred in March, 2005. The Courts below after appreciating the evidence brought on record have given a finding of fact that the agreement to sell in question was duly executed by the appellant in favour of the plaintiff. In order to establish that the the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, plaintiff proved on record his affidavit Ex.P-2 which was sworn by the plaintiff to the effect that he had remained present in the Office of the Sub- Registrar on the stipulated date fixed for execution of the sale deed. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be decreed. RSA No.57 of 2011 (O & M) ::4:: No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 30, 2011 sukhpreet