Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 612 (PNJ)

Karamjit Singh v. Narinder Kaur

2000-05-31

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a defendants appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.5.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Rupnagar who dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1998 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Jude (Sr. Division), Rupnagar who decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manners. The case set up by the plaintiff-respondent before the trial Court was that on 7.2.1995 defendant entered into an agreement for selling the suit property to the plaintiff for a consolidated amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and received Rs. 50,000/- as an earnest money. As per the terms of the agreement the sale deed was to be executed on or before 7.2.1997. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The defendant backed out of the agreement. So much so plaintiff went to the office of the Sub Registrar on 10.2.1997 as from 7.2.1997 to 9.2.1997 were gazetted holidays. In spite of the fact that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract the defendant backed out from the agreement. Hence the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that agreement is false and fabricated. The appellant wanted to raise a loan for his domestic purposes and the respondent promised to lend the loan to the appellant on interest at the rate of 12% per annum and fraudulently got the signatures of the appellant on blank papers on the plea that she will execute the loan documents on these papers and the plaintiff might have got scribed the agreement to sell the property in question on these papers. In short the defence of the defendant was that he never executed any agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff is a forgery. 4. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the defendant has executed the agreement dated 7.2.1995 and agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- and received Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money ? OPP 2. 4. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the defendant has executed the agreement dated 7.2.1995 and agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- and received Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 7.2.1995 ? OPP 4. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form ? OPP 5. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and granted a decree for possession by way of specific performance. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant- appellant filed the first appeal before the Court and learned District Judge, Ropar who vide his judgment and decree dated 11.5.2000 dismissed the suit for the reasons given in paras No. 8 to 11 of the judgment, which are reproduced as under :- "8. The learned counsel for defendant/appellant has argued that the appellant had approached the respondent for obtaining the signatures of appellant on blank papers, but, thereafter, neither the loan was taken from her nor she had returned the papers on which the signatures were obtained. The learned counsel has further argued that the appellant never entered into any agreement to sell the house in question in favour of respondent-plaintiff for Rs. 2,50,000/- and he has also not received Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money. He has only one house and has no other house to live in. As such, there is no question of execution of the agreement to sell the house in dispute in favour of the respondent. The plaintiff/respondent later on converted the document on which his signatures were obtained into agreement to sell. The learned counsel has argued that defendant/appellant Karamjit Singh himself appeared as PW-2 and examined Gurmeet Kaur as DW-2. As such, there is no question of execution of the agreement to sell the house in dispute in favour of the respondent. The plaintiff/respondent later on converted the document on which his signatures were obtained into agreement to sell. The learned counsel has argued that defendant/appellant Karamjit Singh himself appeared as PW-2 and examined Gurmeet Kaur as DW-2. The learned counsel has argued that findings of the trial Court on all the issues are incorrect, the same may be set aside and suit of the plaintiff-respondent may be dismissed by way of acceptance of appeal. 9. The learned counsel for plaintiff/respondent, on the other hand, has argued that the appellant has entered into an agreement to sell the property in question for Rs. 2,50,000/- and has also received Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money. The said agreement was duly executed by the professional deed writer and was attested by the witnesses. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 7.2.1997. Thereafter, the respondent had been approaching the appellant to execute the sale deed but he did not do so. There were gazetted holidays from 7.2.1997 to 9.2.1997, so, the respondent had gone to the office of Sub Tehsil premises at Morinda on 10.2.1997 and also on 11.2.1997 but the defendant/appellant never came to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent in pursuance of the agreement. She has also got attested her affidavit showing her presence, readiness and willingness to perform her part of the agreement on 10.11.1997. But, it is the appellant who has failed to perform his part of the agreement. The learned counsel has argued that the execution of the agreement was duly proved by Paraminderjit Singh PW-1, Narinder Kaur PW-2 and Amarjit Singh PW-3. The learned counsel has argued that though the appellant has denied the execution of the agreement to sell the house in dispute, but, he has filed an application before the police copy of which is Ex.PX wherein he has admitted the execution of the agreement in favour of the respondent. So, the findings of the trial Court on all the issues are correct and the same way be affirmed and appeal of the appellant may be dismissed, counsel. 10. Narinder Kaur plaintiff/respondent while appearing as PW-2 has stated that the appellant has entered into agreement to sell his house in favour of respondent for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. So, the findings of the trial Court on all the issues are correct and the same way be affirmed and appeal of the appellant may be dismissed, counsel. 10. Narinder Kaur plaintiff/respondent while appearing as PW-2 has stated that the appellant has entered into agreement to sell his house in favour of respondent for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The agreement was executed on 7.2.1995 and at that time he has also received Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money in the presence of the witnesses. The agreement was duly executed by the professional deed writer and was attested by the witnesses. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 7.2.1997. She had been approaching the appellant to perform his part of the agreement. From 7.2.1997 to 9.2.1997 there were gazetted holidays. So, on 10.2.1997 the respondent appeared before the Joint Sub Registrar, Morinda to perform her part of agreement and waited for appellant till 5 P.M. but the appellant did not turn up. Thereafter, she got attested her affidavit Ex.P-2 from the Executive Magistrate, Morinda. Again on 11.2.1997, she had gone to tehsil office Morinda and after waiting till 5.00 P.M. when the appellant did not turn up to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent, she got attested her affidavit Ex.P-3 showing her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract. The appellant has taken the plea in the written statement that his signatures were obtained by respondent on blank papers and those papers were later on converted into agreement to sell. Whereas, he has not executed any agreement to sell in favour of respondent, but this fact has been contradicted by application Ex.PX moved by the appellant to the D.S.P. Kharar where the appellant has admitted the execution of the agreement to sell his house in favour of respondent for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. He had also indicated in the application that his signatures were obtained by the respondent, but she had not paid the money to him. Besides this, the agreement was executed on 7.2.1995 and the application Ex.PX before the police was made on 27.2.1997 i.e. about 20 days after the date stipulated for execution of sale deed, as according to the agreement to sell, the sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 7.2.1997. Besides this, the agreement was executed on 7.2.1995 and the application Ex.PX before the police was made on 27.2.1997 i.e. about 20 days after the date stipulated for execution of sale deed, as according to the agreement to sell, the sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 7.2.1997. The appellant never alleged in the written statement that he ever attended the office of Sub Registrar, Morinda to perform his part of agreement. While appearing as DW-2 he has admitted that he knew Karamjit Singh Nambardar but he has not alleged any enmity against Karamjit Singh or any of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff/respondent. So, when the appellant has admitted the execution of the agreement with the police in Ex.PX, there is no question of taking his signatures on blank papers by the respondent/plaintiff. When the appellant has admitted the execution of the agreement before the police in Ex.PX the onus to prove is shifted on the appellant that he did not execute the agreement in favour of the respondent, but, he has failed to prove that agreement was not executed by him or that it was the result of fraud. 11. In the present case, on account of admission made by the appellant about the execution of the agreement in favour of respondent/plaintiff in Ex.PX before the police, there is no question of passing any decree for the recovery of the amount and in view of the agreement Ex.P-1, the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to the possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of the same. Thus, the findings of the trial Court on all the issues are correct and the same are affirmed." 7. In this manner, the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed. 8. I have heard Shri D.N. Ganeriwala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and with his assistance have through the record of the case. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is fully convinced that the defence taken up by the defendant was false. He executed the agreement with a conscious mind and with free consent in favour of the plaintiff and later on he tried to back out from the same. It is also proved on the record that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. 10. He executed the agreement with a conscious mind and with free consent in favour of the plaintiff and later on he tried to back out from the same. It is also proved on the record that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. 10. Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact defendant Shri Karamjit Singh wanted to raise loan from the plaintiff. On trust, he put the signatures on blank paper and the plaintiff-respondent has misutilised the signatures on the stamp paper and in this manner agreement of sale has been executed. It was also submitted that the time of performance of the agreement was two years and this is improbable. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that it has come in the statement of the plaintiff-respondent that she never visited the property in question allegedly agreed to be purchased by her and it is improbable that a purchaser who wanted to purchase the property for consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- will not even look to the property which she was going to purchase. 11. I have considered both the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant who has also read the evidence of the plaintiff. From the statement of the plaintiff, I have come to this conclusion that the settlement was made between the appellant and the husband of the respondent and the agreement was executed in the name of Smt. Narinder Kaur plaintiff. There is no improbability if the time has been granted to the defendant to execute the sale deed for two years. There can be surrounding valid reasons for this defendant to deliver the possession to the plaintiff immediately or he might have requested the plaintiff to give reasonable time so that the sale deed may be executed after a lapse of two years and in the meanwhile he would arrange some other accommodation. 12. Both the Courts have rightly come to the conclusion that the agreement was executed by the defendant and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The conduct of the defendant does not inspire any confidence. If the documents were going to be misutilised by the plaintiff the defendant could file a criminal complaint or he could lodge a report in this behalf in the police-station. The conduct of the defendant does not inspire any confidence. If the documents were going to be misutilised by the plaintiff the defendant could file a criminal complaint or he could lodge a report in this behalf in the police-station. In the modern times, it is difficult for the law Courts to believe that a person would give his signature on a blank stamp paper. 13. In this view of the matter, I do not see any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgments. No merit. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.