RSA No.3309 of 2010 (O & M) - 1 - . IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3309 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 16.05.2011 Jeeto Bai and others ……Appellants Versus Kewal Krishan and others …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. A. K. Khunger, Advocate for the appellants. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.9738-C of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 14 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal. This is second appeal filed by some of the legal representatives of Chakar Singh original defendant since deceased, having failed in both the Courts below. Respondent No.1-plaintiff-Kewal Krishan filed suit against Chakar Singh defendant (since deceased and represented by appellants and proforma respondent Nos.2 to 5 as his legal representatives). The plaintiff alleged that defendant being owner in RSA No.3309 of 2010 (O & M) - 2 - possession of the suit land measuring 16 kanals agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,60,000/- and received Rs.1,15,000/- and executed agreement dated 03.07.1998. Sale deed was to be executed upto 02.07.1999. Accordingly, on 02.07.1999, the plaintiff went to the office of Sub-Registrar to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement, but the defendant did not turn up and committed breach of the agreement. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought possession of the suit land by specific performance of the aforesaid agreement. The plaintiff also claimed ancillary relief of permanent injunction. In the alternative, the plaintiff also claimed recovery of Rs.1,60,000/-. Defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. The defendant denied having agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff or having received any earnest money or having executed the impugned agreement. The defendant rather pleaded that plaintiff’s father is a commission agent and the defendant used to sell his agricultural produce at the shop of plaintiff’s father, who obtained signatures and thumb impressions of defendant on some blank papers, when defendant started selling his crop at the shop of plaintiff’s father. The defendant stopped selling his crop at the shop of plaintiff’s father on account of his dishonest intention and cleared all his dues. However, the blank stamp papers bearing signatures or thumb impressions of defendant taken for security purpose have RSA No.3309 of 2010 (O & M) - 3 - been misused by forging the impugned agreement. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.2009 decreed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by legal representatives of defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 14.01.2010. Feeling aggrieved, some of the legal representatives of defendant have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. The plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box and examined scribe and one attesting witness of the agreement. All of them have broadly stated according to plaintiff’s version. This evidence of the plaintiff is very cogent and reliable and has not been impeached in any manner. The aforesaid evidence of the plaintiff also stands unrebutted. The defendant or his legal representatives did not lead any evidence nor any of them appeared in the witness box. Consequently adverse presumption arises against the defendant and his legal representatives. RSA No.3309 of 2010 (O & M) - 4 - The defendant by his written statement impliedly admitted his signature on the impugned agreement. This circumstance further strengthens the plaintiff’s case. It may be added at the risk of repetition that plaintiff’s evidence is cogent and credit worthy and is sufficient to prove his case. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the defendant used to sell his crop at the shop of plaintiff’s father, who obtained signatures of defendant on blank stamp papers which have been converted into the impugned agreement. The contention is completely meritless as it has not been substantiated by any evidence. There is not even an iota of evidence on record to substantiate this contention. On the contrary, this contention is demolished by another contention of counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that adhesive stamp was affixed subsequently on a simple blank paper bearing signature of defendant and the same was converted into impugned agreement. However, it is the defendant’s case in the written statement that his signatures had been obtained on blank stamp papers and, therefore, the question of affixing adhesive stamp later on on a simple blank paper bearing signature of defendant did not arise. There is also not even an iota of evidence on record to depict that defendant ever sold any agricultural produce at the shop of plaintiff’s father or even to depict that plaintiff’s father was running a shop as commission agent. RSA No.3309 of 2010 (O & M) - 5 - Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that sale consideration mentioned in the impugned agreement at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per acre is highly inadequate. The contention is again devoid of any substance. There is not even an iota of evidence on record to depict that market price of the suit land at the time of impugned agreement was more than the sale consideration recited in the agreement. It appears that no such plea has even been taken in the written statement. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the plaintiff after paying Rs.1,15,000/- as earnest money out of total sale consideration of Rs.1,60,000/- would not have fixed the date for sale deed at one year after the execution of the agreement. The contention cannot be accepted because this was the mutual agreement between the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that suit land is the only land of the defendant. The contention is again hypothetical, based on conjectures and without any merit. There is neither any such pleading nor any material on record in support of the aforesaid contention. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below in favour of plaintiff-respondent No.1 is justified by the evidence on record. In fact no other finding could be arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record. Accordingly, the aforesaid RSA No.3309 of 2010 (O & M) - 6 - finding does not warrant interference in second appeal because it cannot be said to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 16.05.2011. A.kaundal