RSA No.3972 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3972 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 6.1.2009 Narinder and others ......Appellants Versus Jagat Pal and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the appellants. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.11816-C of 2008 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3972 of 2008 This is defendants’ second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff- respondents for specific performance of suit land has been decreed with costs and defendant No.1 (predecessor-in-interest of the appellants) was directed to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff-Jagat Pal. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell regarding disputed property alleging therein that an agreement to sell was executed on 17.3.1998 by the defendants and the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. Rs.2,28,000/- were paid to the defendants by the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement. The last date for executing the sale deed was fixed as 17.3.1999. The said date was extended from time to time and lastly, the date for execution and RSA No.3972 of 2008(O&M) 2 registration of the sale deed was fixed as 17.3.1999. It was further averred in the suit that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as per agreement to sell dated 17.3.1998 read with agreement for extension of time for execution of the sale deed but the defendants failed to execute the sale deed despite several requests. Hence, the suit. Upon notice, defendant No.1 filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was pleaded that defendant No.1 never entered into an agreement to sell regarding suit land with the plaintiff. It was further averred that defendant No.1 used to sell his crops at the shop of a commission agent at Bhattu Kalan who used to take the thumb impressions of defendant No.1 in his Bahis and on blank papers and the said commission agent in connivance with the plaintiff converted those plain papers into agreement to sell and the defendant was not bound by the same. Receipt of Rs.2,28,000/- was also denied by defendant No.1. All other material allegations contained in the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was sought. After appreciating the evidence led by the parties and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant No.1 filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 8.9.2008. Still not satisfied, the appellants, who are legal representatives of defendant No.1, who died during the pendency of the appeal, have filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that from the evidence on record, it is amply proved that it was not a case RSA No.3972 of 2008(O&M) 3 of agreement to sell rather it was a sort of money transaction and moreover, those documents were forged and fabricated documents in the garb of some transactions between the appellants and one Banwari Lal commission agent as he had taken the signatures of defendant No.1 on some blank papers and thereafter got executed the agreement to sell. On the other hand, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that any agreement was executed out of free will and with the consent of the defendant and, therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record of the case. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the execution of the agreement to sell stands proved and the defendant-appellants have failed to prove their plea that the alleged agreement to sell is an outcome of forgery and fabrication. The only contention of the defendant-appellants that Banwari Lal was the person who got the agreement executed fraudulently in connivance with the plaintiff-respondent is devoid of merit in view of the statement of DW-1 because in his cross-examination Kurda Ram-defendant No.1 has admitted that Banwari Lal is his commission agent and still he has relations with said Banwari Lal. Kurda Ram also admitted that he had entered into a contract with the plaintiff with regard to the house. The act and conduct of the defendant is strange as on the one hand the defendant has asserted that forgery was committed by Banwari Lal commission agent, while on the other hand he was having cordial relations with aforesaid Banwari Lal. Even Banwari Lal was not summoned by the defendants. Thus, the defendants have miserably failed to prove that any fraud was committed upon them or that the documents Ex.P1 is an outcome of fraud. RSA No.3972 of 2008(O&M) 4 For the reasons recorded above, I find no fault in the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. January 6, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE