RSA No.2074 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 2074 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.5.2011 Paramjit Kaur .....Appellant Versus Atul Mittal and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.I.S.Brar, Advocate,and Mr.I.S.Mann, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Ashok Khunger, Advocate for the caveator **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.2.2006 The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that defendant had agreed to sell land measuring 3 kanal i.e. 1/8th share out of 24 kanal of total land to the plaintiffs at the rate of ` 10,50,000/- per acre i.e. ` 3,53,650/-. Defendant executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs in this regard. `1,00,000/- were received by the defendant from the plaintiffs towards earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 25.5.2006. Plaintiffs had always remained ready and willing to perform their part of the contract but the RSA No.2074 of 2011 (O&M) 2 defendant had failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant, in her written statement, averred that the agreement to sell in question was a forged and fabricated document. The value of the land was much higher and there was no question of execution of an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs at the rate of ` 10,50,000/- per acre. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- "1. Whether the defendant has executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs on 27.2.2006?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract on 25.5.2006?OPP 3.Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.2.2006?OPP 4.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property in favour of any other person ??OPP 5.Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 6.Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 7.Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 8,Whether the agreement to sell dated 27.2.2006 is forged and fabricated and is without consideration?OPD RSA No.2074 of 2011 (O&M) 3 9.Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD 10.Relief." The Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 21.7.2010 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal filed by the defendant by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 26.2.2011. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the agreement to sell in question was a forged and fabricated document. The price of the land even at the rate of ` 10,50,000/- per acre come to `3,93,650/-,whereas, in the agreement to sell in question the sale price was mentioned as ` 3,53,650/-. Learned counsel for the Caveator has submitted that, in fact, due to typographical error, sale amount has been mentioned ` 3,53,650/- in the agreement to sell in question,whereas, it should have been `3,93,650/- as rate was fixed at `10,50,000/- per acre. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiffs had filed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.2.2006. In order to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell in question, plaintiff examined PW2 Prem Chand Jain, attesting witness to the agreement to sell and Plaintiff Gura Singh himself appeared in the witness box as PW3. The said witness deposed qua the due execution of the agreement to sell in question. Defendant, on the other hand, had RSA No.2074 of 2011 (O&M) 4 failed to rebut the said evidence. Defendant also failed to establish that the agreement to sell in question was a result of fraud or fabrication. The fact that the sale price was not correctly calculated in the agreement to sell in question was a typographical error as the sale price was liable to be calculated @ ` 10,50,000/ per acre. The learned counsel for the Caveator has submitted that the plaintiffs were ready to pay another sum of ` 40,000/ towards sale consideration apart from the sale consideration mentioned in the agreement to sell in question after correctly calculating the same at the rate of `10,50,000/ per acre. In order to establish that the plaintiffs had always remained ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, plaintiff Gura Singh proved on record his affidavit Exhibit PW1/A. As per the same, plaintiffs had remained present in the Office of the Sub Registrar on the stipulated date fixed for execution of the sale deed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge May 12, 2011 arya