R.S.A. No. 1343 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1343 of 2009 Date of decision : 2.2.2011 Gurdev Singh ......Appellant Versus Sudha Bangar and others .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Ms. Amandeep Soni, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.3.1998. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that defendant was owner of the suit land and had agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff on 25.3.1998. Defendant had executed an agreement to sell on the said date in favour of the plaintiff. ` 1,00,000/- was paid towards earnest money by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 24.3.1999. Thereafter, both the parties mutually agreed to extend the date for execution of the sale deed from R.S.A. No. 1343 of 2009 2 25.3.1999 to 25.6.1999 and a writing in this regard was duly executed. At that time ` 20,000/- were paid as additional earnest money by the plaintiff to the defendant. Plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar on the stipulated date, but defendant failed to appear. Hence, suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell was filed by the plaintiff. The defendant, in his written statement, denied the execution of the agreement to sell in question. It was averred that the alleged agreement to sell was a forged and a fabricated document. Plaintiff was running a finance company and defendant had taken a loan of ` 50,000/- from the plaintiff in March 1998. The plaintiff had taken signatures of the defendant on certain blank papers and blank stamp papers. Defendant had repaid the loan amount to the plaintiff till May 1998 in installments. Only one receipt amounting to ` 7,000/- dated 22.9.1998 was available with the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether on 25.3.1998, the defendant entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff and received an amount of Rs. One lac as an earnest money from the plaintiff ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession by way of decree for specific performance of agreement to sell ? OPP. 3. Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,40,000/- ? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction R.S.A. No. 1343 of 2009 3 as prayed for ? OPP. 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPP. 6. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 24.5.2007, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 20.1.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Courts below had erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff was running a finance company and had advanced loan to the appellant. At the time of advancement of loan, signatures of the appellant had been obtained on blank stamp papers. Moreover, the suit had been filed when the limitation for filing the suit was about to expire and this showed that there was no intention of the parties to execute the sale deed. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the defendant himself had failed to appear in the witness box to support his plea that his signatures had been taken on blank stamp papers. Defendant had examined DW1 Gurmit Singh. The said witness was not present when the signatures of the appellant had been allegedly taken on blank papers. The appellant had gone to a foreign country and due to this reason the suit could not be filed earlier as the respondent was trying his best that the appellant should execute the sale deed in his favour. R.S.A. No. 1343 of 2009 4 After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The agreement to sell in question Ex.PW1/A is duly signed by the appellant. Ex.PW/B is the agreement qua extension of date of the execution of the sale deed from 26.3.1999 to 25.6.1999. A perusal of the same reveals that another sum of ` 20,000/- were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The said agreement consists of six stamp paper and all the papers are duly signed by the defendant. As per Ex.PW1/A ` 1,00,000/- had been paid as earnest money by the plaintiff to the defendant. In order to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell, plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box and examined PW1 Sham Sunder scribe and PW4 Dilbagh Singh attesting witness. In order to prove Ex.PW1/B plaintiff examined Sunil Kumar and Rajnish Kumar attesting witnesses to the said agreement. The appellant, on the other hand, failed to rebut the due execution of the agreement to sell as well as the agreement qua extension of the date for execution of the sale deed. The plea of the appellant that his signatures were obtained on blank papers is liable to be discarded in view of the evidence led by the plaintiff. 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.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B. The plaintiff had, thus, duly marked his presence in the office of the Sub-Registrar to show his bona fide that he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The R.S.A. No. 1343 of 2009 5 fact that the plaintiff is running a finance company would not be ipso facto sufficient to disbelieve the agreement to sell executed by the appellant in favour of the plaintiff as the plaintiff had been successful in proving the due execution of the agreement to sell. The suit was filed by the plaintiff within the period of limitation. The fact that suit was filed when the limitation was about to expire in itself would not lead to the inference that no such agreement to sell had been executed. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 2, 2011 Anand