-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 115 of 2011 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 20, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 115 of 2011 (O&M). Jasbir Kaur ... Appellant VERSUS Tejinder Kaur and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Kiran Verma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate, for the caveators/respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Appellant-defendant Jasbir Kaur is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs i.e Tejinder Kaur, Jasminder Singh, Manwinder Kaur and Kamaljit Kaur for possession by way of specific performance of agreement -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 115 of 2011 (O&M). to sell executed on 1.5.1997 by the appellant-defendant in favour of Harbhajan Singh (since deceased), husband of plaintiff Tejinder Kaur and father of plaintiffs Jasminder Singh, Manwinder Kaur and Kamaljit Kaur was decreed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the judgments rendered by both the Courts below. Appellant-defendant Jasbir Kaur failed to prove that the agreement in question (Exhibit P.W.3/5) whereby she had agreed to sell the house measuring 23 square yards for Rs.2,00,000/- to Harbhajan Singh (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents-plaintiffs) was forged or fabricated document. The appellant-plaintiff admitted her signatures on the said agreement. No doubt, the defendant-appellant pleaded that she had obtained a loan of Rs.20,000/- from Harbhajan Singh which she had returned and that Harbhajan Singh had obtained her signatures on blank papers as a measure of security, but in her cross-examination while deposing as D.W.1, defendant Jasbir Kaur stated that no writing regarding the loan of Rs.20,000/- was executed. She further stated that she had returned the loan amount of Rs.20,000/- to Harbhajan Singh. Had it been so, the defendant must have obtained receipt from Harbhajan Singh and would not have failed to place the same on record in order to support her case. It having not been done, it belies the case of the defendant-appellant that she had taken any loan from Harbhajan Singh (predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs- respondents). Besides, Jasbir Kaur (D.W.1), in her cross- -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 115 of 2011 (O&M). examination, admitted that she had signed the register in order to purchase the stamp paper from the Deed Writer. It further negates the case of the defendant that her signatures were obtained on the agreement by Harbhajan Singh on the pretext of advancing loan to her. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 20, 2011. JUDGE ak