Regular Second Appeal No. 3827 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3827 of 2007 Date of decision: July 03, 2008 Kaka Singh …..APPELLANT Versus Manjit Singh …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr R.N.Singal, Advocate , Mr Atul Lakhanpal, Sr Advocate with Mr Ravi Dhaliwal, Advocate T.P.S.MANN, J. Suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23.12.1999 was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Fatehabad on 12.5.2005. The defendant filed an appeal against the said decision, which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad on 27.8.2007. Still aggrieved of the same, the defendant has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As per the case of the plaintiff-respondent, an agreement to sell was executed by the defendant-appellant on 23.12.1999 for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre in respect of the land measuring 14 kanals. Out of the consideration amount, a sum of Rs.70,000/- was received by the defendant as an earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed by 22.12.2000. The date for execution of the sale deed was Regular Second Appeal No. 3827 of 2007 -2- later on extended to 21.12.2001. A legal notice was, thereafter, issued by the defendant through his counsel to the father of the plaintiff, in which he denied the existence of agreement to sell dated 23.12.1999. This notice was replied by the plaintiff's father vide written reply dated 8.6.2001, which was sent by registered post and the defendant was requested to execute the sale deed as per the agreement to sell. However, the defendant did not give any reply. The plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the defendant did not execute the sale deed, in spite of the fact that he was asked many a time by the plaintiff in that regard. Accordingly, suit for possession by way of specific performance was filed. The defendant opposed the suit by alleging that father of the plaintiff was a clever person, who obtained his thumb impressions on blank papers and stamp paper for giving loan to him and these papers were converted into the aforementioned agreement. The defendant specifically denied the execution of the agreement to sell dated 23.12.1999, besides receiving earnest money of Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that thumb impressions of the appellant were obtained by the father of the respondent on blank papers and stamp paper, which were later-on converted into the agreement to sell. By referring to a photostat copy of the agreement to sell, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that there was some tampering with the endorsement said to have been Regular Second Appeal No. 3827 of 2007 -3- made on 21.12.2000, whereby the parties agreed for extending the date of execution of sale deed. The thumb impression of the plaintiff as existing on the endorsement was claimed to have been obtained, when it was a blank paper and later-on the endorsement was written and part of the endorsement appeared on the thumb impression itself. I have perused the photostat copy of the agreement to sell in question. At page-2 of the said agreement, there is an endorsement in the left hand column regarding extension of time for executing the sale deed. The thumb impression of the appellant has covered some portion of the endorsement, but that does not mean that the thumb impression was obtained on a blank paper. If it had been so, the person who was to fabricate the endorsement would have safely avoided writing on the thumb impression itself. It is apparent that the endorsement was written first, which was, thereafter, thumb marked by the plaintiff and in the process his thumb impression appeared on some portion of the endorsement as well. The thumb impressions of the plaintiff appear on page-2 of the agreement to sell, besides on the endorsement dated 21.12.2000. A bare perusal of thumb impressions would show that the same were affixed at two different points of time and not at one point of time. If the argument of the appellant that his thumb impressions were obtained on blank paper was to be accepted, then both the thumb impressions would have appeared almost identically, having been affixed at one and the same time. While the thumb impression of the appellant, as appearing Regular Second Appeal No. 3827 of 2007 -4- on the agreement is in darker print, the one on the endorsement is in a lighter print. Moreover, while appearing as DW-1, the appellant in his cross-examination stated that Sham Singh, father of the respondent never obtained his thumb impressions on the stamp paper. According to him, they were obtained on some blank papers. However, a perusal of the agreement to sell dated 23.12.1999 shows that the same has been written on a stamp paper, which was purchased by the plaintiff himself from the Stamp Vendor. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, learned Courts below have consistently found that the agreement to sell was duly executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent on 23.12.1999 so as to sell his 14 kanals of land at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. He received a sum of Rs.70,000/- as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed by 22.12.2000. However, a day before the stipulated date, the parties agreed to extend the time of execution of sale deed up to 21.12.2001. The concurrent findings of facts, as arrived at by the learned lower Courts, cannot be disturbed in a second appeal. Substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, do not arise for consideration. The appeal has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed. July 03, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE