-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 2708 of 2010. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 04, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 2708 of 2010. Sat Pal Jaura ... Appellant VERSUS Shanti Devi ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by way -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 2708 of 2010. of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 4.3.1999 pertaining to the house measuring approximately 250 square yards bearing Pvt. No.342 situated at G.T. Road, Guru Nanak Road, Verka (Amritsar) and a piece of land measuring 5 Marlas situated at Verka (Amritsar) with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from alienating the suit properties in any manner whatsoever was dismissed. Defendant-respondent Shanti Devi is the mother of plaintiff-appellant Sat Pal Jaura. The defendant allegedly agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,15,000/- as she (defendant) wanted to help her younger son Raj Paul financially. An agreement containing terms of said sale was duly executed between the parties on 4.3.1999 and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid in cash to the defendant. A receipt in this regard was received by the plaintiff from the defendant. As per the said agreement, the defendant had agreed that her younger son Raj Paul would be entitled to receive money for and on behalf of the defendant. According to the said term, Raj Pal received Rs.45,000/- from the plaintiff vide receipt dated 3.1.2001. As such, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.2,15,000/-, a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- had already been paid to the defendant. As per averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his remaining part of the agreement and that he was ready to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- to the defendant. -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 2708 of 2010. However, the defendant, who was under the influence of her son Raj Paul, refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. A notice dated 30.5.2001 was also served upon the defendant in this regard, but to no avail. Though the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, but the first Appellate Court found that the agreement of sale (Exhibit P.1) was nothing but a forged document. Similar was the fate of receipt (Exhibit P.2). The first Appellate Court further found that in the year 1992, a case was registered against defendant Shanti Devi and her son Raj Paul vide F.I.R. No.179 of 1992 under Sections 406/498 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Purani Abadi, Sri Ganga Nagar, on the complaint filed by the wife of Raj Paul and daughter-in-law of defendant Shanti Devi. Both the defendant and her son Raj Pal had to remain underground and had applied for bail. The plaintiff being the son of the defendant was pursuing the said case for bail of the defendant and her son Raj Paul (brother of the plaintiff). The defendant, who was an illiterate old lady of more than 85 years, had signed on certain blank papers, as deposed by her while appearing as D.W.1. The agreement (Exhibit P.1) and receipt (Exhibit P.2) are on plain papers. I have seen the photo-copies of Exhibits P.1 and P.2 produced by the learned counsel for the defendant- respondent, which have been admitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. As noticed above, these documents are on plain papers and on the agreement (Exhibit P.1) thumb -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 2708 of 2010. impressions of the defendant and on the receipt signatures of Raj Paul appear to have been obtained first and these documents were prepared later on as no prudent person will get an agreement of sale of property worth Rs.2,15,000/- executed on a simple paper without any stamp. It appears that the marginal witnesses, namely, Parveen Kumar ( P.W.1) and Chitresh Dhawan (P.W.2) were not present at the time of execution of said documents. The agreement (Exhibit P.1) had been got typed but the names of the marginal witnesses were not got typed thereon. The names and addresses of the marginal witnesses were not written at the end of the agreement (Exhibit P.1) as no space was left there. Moreover, two thumb impressions of the defendant appear on the agreement (Exhibit P.1) whereas only one thumb impression of the seller is required on the agreement. The signatures of the marginal witnesses appear below the receipt and it was so done to adjust the second thumb impression of the defendant. There, thus, remains no doubt that the marginal witnesses had been introduced later on. If they were present at the time of execution of the agreement, their signatures would have been got typed at the end of the agreement and not at the end of the receipt. Besides, the names and addresses of the marginal witnesses have been written with hand and that too with different inks/pens than the words “R.T.I. Of Shanti Devi” written thereon. Similarly, a bare perusal of receipt (Exhibit P.2) allegedly issued by Raj Paul, real brother of the plaintiff and son of the defendant, shows -5- Regular Second Appeal No. 2708 of 2010. that it has been prepared to adjust the signatures of Raj Pal on blank papers as some part of the paper had been removed. The receipt had been got typed whereas the signatures and address of the above-mentioned marginal witness, namely, Parveen Kumar are hand written. The word typed on the receipt is “witnesses” whereas only witness i.e Parveen Kumar had signed the receipt. It is also worth noticing that signatures of Raj Paul on the receipt appear twice. Firstly, he issues receipt in regard to having received Rs.45,000/- and thereafter he again signs after the words “payment of Rs.45000/- given cash to Sh. Raj Paul”. The signatures of alleged marginal witness Parveen Kumar on the receipt are also with a different ink and different pen as had been used by Raj Paul to sign it. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by the first Appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 04, 2011. JUDGE ak