RSA No.1588 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1588 of 2009 Date of decision : 23-7-2009 Major Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Smt. Gurpal Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (Oral) The appellant challenges the judgment and decree dated 27-11-2008, passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur accepting the appeal filed by the respondents and as a result setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28-4-2005, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hoshiarpur. A brief narrative of the facts would be appropriate. The appellant filed a suit for possession by specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 3-3-1997 executed by Baldev Singh, son of Sh. Chetan Singh agreeing to sell 35 kanals and 10 marlas of land @Rs.83,000/- per acre. Baldev Singh received Rs.6 lacs as earnest money and agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 13-12- 2000. At the time of the execution of the agreement to sell Baldev Singh stated that as he was the attorney of the other co-sharers he was authorized to sell the land falling to their share. It is further pleaded that before Baldev Singh could arrange the power of RSA No.1588 of 2009 -2- attorney of his co-sharers, he passed away. The appellant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and therefore the legal representatives of Baldev Singh and the other respondents should be directed to execute the sale deed with respect to 35 kanals and 10 marlas. In the alternative, the appellant prayed for return of the amount of Rs.6 lacs paid as earnest money and Rs.4,60,000/- the agreed amount of liquidated damages, with interest @18% per annum. Upon notice, the respondents denied the execution of the agreement by alleging that it was forged and fabricated. It was denied that any amount was ever received by Baldev Singh and as even otherwise Baldev Singh never hold a power of attorney from the other co-sharers, the entire story appears to be fabricated. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed issues and thereafter called upon the parties to lead evidence. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial Court declined the relief for specific performance but decreed the suit for refund of Rs.10,60,000/-,with future interest @ 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the respondents filed an appeal. The First Appellate Court accepted the appeal, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit by holding that though the alleged agreement to sell bears the signatures of Baldev Singh but a perusal of the agreement and the evidence on record clearly establishes that Baldev Singh did not execute any agreement to sell. RSA No.1588 of 2009 -3- Counsel for the appellant submits that as held by the trial Court, the agreement stands proved with the proof of the signatures of Baldev Singh. The First Appellate Court therefore had no jurisdiction to reject the agreement to sell. It is argued that the absence of khasra numbers in the agreement or the fact that Baldev Singh was a stranger to the appellant and the attesting witness,or the spacing between the lines etc. are irrelevant. The appellants responded to an advertisement in a newspaper offering to sell the suit land. They met Baldev Singh who agreed to sell the suit land. As a result he received Rs. six lakhs and executed the agreement. It is prayed that the circumstances referred to by the First Appellate Court to hold that the agreement is invalid are entirely irrelevant and in view of the errors committed by the first appellate court, the following questions of law arise for consideration:- a) Whether the lower appellate court by holding that the agreement to sell in question is not proved to be signed by the vendor, has ignored the material evidence of the handwriting expert on record discussed in detailed by the trial court in para 18 of its judgment? b) Whether the reason given by the lower appellate court in setting aside the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the trial court is sustainable in the eye of law? I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and do not find any error of law as would raise any substantial question of law much less the questions framed by counsel for the appellant. The First Appellate Court held that though RSA No.1588 of 2009 -4- Baldev Singh's signatures on the agreement Ex.P1 stand proved but the suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution render it invalid. The First Appellate Court relied upon the following circumstances to hold as above: the abnormal spacing between the typed lines, the space of more than two inches between Baldev Singh's signatures and the last line of the agreement, Baldev Singh had no reason to append his signatures twice, the agreement does not refer to any khasra number and of utmost significance the payment of Rs.6 lacs as earnest money without any receipt. It was also held that as Baldev Singh was a stranger, unknown to the appellant and the attesting witnesses, it was rather strange that the appellant handed over Rs.6 lacs to him without a receipt and on the basis of an agreement that does not fully describe the land. The conclusions recorded by the First Appellate Court, in my considered opinion do not suffer from any error. The first question of law, is factually incorrect as the First Appellate Court has not disregarded the handwriting expert's report as it has held that the document Ex.P1 bears the signatures of Baldev Singh. By way of the second question of law the appellant asserts that the reasons assigned by the first appellate court, while setting aside the trial Court's judgment are not sustainable. However, no argument has been addressed in support of this assertion. The circumstances narrated by the First Appellate Court while rejecting the agreement are in no manner perverse or erroneous and therefore do not merit interference. RSA No.1588 of 2009 -5- In view of what is stated hereinabove as the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court does not suffer from any error of law, the appeal is dismissed. (RAJIVE BHALLA) 23-07-2009 JUDGE mange