R.S.A.No. 2547 of 2011(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2547 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 3.6.2011 Mukhtiar Singh ......Appellant Versus Harbans Kaur .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 9.6.2004. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that defendant No.1 was owner of the suit property. Defendant No.1 appointed his son defendant No.2 as his general attorney vide registered deed dated 30.9.1999. On the basis of the said attorney, defendant No.2 executed an agreement to sell on 9.6.2004, qua the suit property, in favour of the plaintiff on behalf of defendant No.1. ` 2,31,100/- were paid as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement to R.S.A.No. 2547 of 2011(O&M) 2 sell in question. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.5.2005 on payment of balance sale consideration. On the stipulated date, plaintiff remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar to perform his part of the contract but defendants failed to appear to perform their part of the contract. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, denied the execution of the agreement to sell in question. It was admitted that defendant No.2 was the son of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 was proceeded ex parte. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether defendants executed an agreement for the sale of suit land in favour of plaintiff for consideration of ` 3,52,500/- after receiving ` 2,31,100/-? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff was and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract ? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of specific performance of contract dated 9.6.2004 or in the alternative recovery of ` 2,69,115/- i.e. (` 2,31,100/-) being principal amount and ` 38,115/- being interest) along with future interest at the rate of ` 18% per annum from the date of filing the suit till its realisation ? OPP 4.Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present R.S.A.No. 2547 of 2011(O&M) 3 form ? OPD 7. Whether the alleged agreement to sell dated 9.6.2004 is forged and fabricated document? OPD 8. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 8.8.2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.2010 passed by the District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.1. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 9.6.2004. In order to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell in question, plaintiff examined the scribe Krishan Lal as PW-2 and Lal Singh, attesting witness to the agreement to sell in question, as PW-3. The plaintiff herself appeared in the witness box as PW-1. The said witnesses deposed qua due execution of the agreement to sell in question. Plaintiff also examined Dr.Inderjit Singh as PW-4, who after examining the questioned signatures of Lal Singh on agreement to sell in question with his standard signatures, gave the opinion that the same had been affixed by one and the same individual. The fact that defendant No.1 had appointed defendant No.2, his son, as his general attorney is not in dispute. In order to establish her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract, plaintiff proved on record her affidavit Ex.P-2 to substantiate her plea that she had remained R.S.A.No. 2547 of 2011(O&M) 4 present before the Sub Registrar on the stipulated date fixed for execution of the sale deed. The appellant, on the other hand, had failed to lead any evidence to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be decreed. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE June 03, 2011 anita