Regular Second Appeal No.1456 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Regular Second Appeal No.1456 of 2009 Decided on : May 29, 2009 Hakam Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Raj Rani and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the Appellant. A.N.JINDAL, J.- It is defendant's Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby, she dismissed the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.9.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents (herein referred as the plaintiff) for an alternative relief of recovery of money on the basis of the agreement dated 10.5.1996. The plaintiffs Raj Rani and others on the strength of the agreement dated 10.5.1996 filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the defendant – appellant (herein referred as the defendant). It was averred that on receiving a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs (Rs.1,50,000/-), the defendant had executed an agreement to sell 6 Kanals 13 Marlas of land for a consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. The sale- Regular Second Appeal No.1456 of 2009 [ 2 ] deed was to be executed by the defendant on or before 5.3.1999, but despite the legal notice issued on 15.3.1999, the defendant did not execute the sale-deed. Another legal notice dated 23.2.2000 also failed to get response. However, Des Raj, in whose favour the agreement had been executed, died on 7.3.2000 and thereafter, Raj Rani (plaintiff) widow of Des Raj requested for the execution of the sale-deed, but the defendant flatly refused to perform his part of the agreement and, consequently, the suit was filed. Besides contesting the suit on the grounds of maintainability, locus standi, limitation, etc., the defendant also alleged that the agreement was false, fictitious and a forged document; his signatures were obtained on blank papers, which were misused and converted into an agreement. Ultimately, the Trial Court vide its judgment dated 5.9.2006 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1.5 lacs along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of agreement i.e, 10.5.1996 till the date of the judgment and future interest @ 6% per annum till its realisation. The appeal preferred by the defendant was also dismissed. So far as the execution of the agreement dated 10.5.1996 is concerned, the same stand fully proved. In this regard, the testimony of Sandeep Kumar (PW2) is relevant, who has stated that the defendant had agreed to sell the suit land in favour of Des Raj (husband of plaintiff No.1) and the agreement dated 10.5.1996 was executed in his presence. He has also stated that Bharat Bhushan was also present at the time of execution of the said agreement. He has further testified that the Regular Second Appeal No.1456 of 2009 [ 3 ] defendant had signed the agreement after receiving a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from Des Raj and the contents of the document i.e, the agreement were read over and explained to the parties. The testimony of Sandeep Kumar (PW2) gets corroboration from Bharat Bhushan (PW3), who has also stated on the same lines. Apart from this, Handwriting Expert Navdeep Gupta (PW4) has also given his opinion that the disputed signatures (Ex.PW4/1) on the agreement in question tally with the standard signatures of the defendant on the Vakalatnama, written statement, summons, etc. The attesting witnesses i.e. Sandeep Kumar (PW2) and Bharat Bhushan (PW3) were put to lengthy cross- examination, but nothing adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs, could be elicited from them and the veracity of the witnesses could not be impeached. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Om Parkash, scribe of the agreement was not examined and thus, the agreement should be termed as a forged document, holds no water as scribe is not necessarily to be examined for proving a document, where there is already sufficient evidence to prove the same. It is also well settled by now that once the attesting witnesses prove a transaction as well as execution of the document recorded in that connection, then the onus shifts on the other party to lead evidence to rebut the same. Moreover, the stand of the defendant is self contradictory as in the written statement, he took the plea that is signatures were obtained on blank papers/ stamp papers, which were later on converted into agreement, whereas, at later stage, he denied his signatures on the Regular Second Appeal No.1456 of 2009 [ 4 ] documents. Though, in this regard, hand-writing experts have been examined, but the Trial Court has rightly observed that since the comparison of handwriting is not a perfect science, therefore, much weight could not be given to the testimony of the rival expert witnesses as they generally depose in favour of the party engaging them. In any case, the opinion of handwriting expert in the instant case is not of much relevance, particularly, in view of the fact that the defendant himself has stated that his signatures were obtained on blank plain papers/stamp papers, which were later on converted into agreements. There is no adequate evidence regarding the forgery. There are concurrent findings of fact returned by both the courts below that the defendant had received Rs.1.5 lacs from Des Raj, which appear to have been so recorded on good reasons. No substantial question of law arises or is involved in the present case. Resultantly, finding no grounds to interfere in the impugned judgments, the appeal is dismissed. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE May 29, 2009 `gian