Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1165 (PNJ)

Jeet Singh v. Bahadur Singh

2009-07-16

SABINA

body2009
Judgment Sabina, J. 1. Plaintiff-Bahadur Singh had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreements to sell dated 11.6.1999. Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Malerkotla vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.2003 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Sangrur, vide judgment and decree dated 10.4.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. 2. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 5 of its judgment read as under:- "The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that on 11.6.1999 defendant agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.32,000/- per bigha, for total consideration of Rs.6.40,000/- and he received Rs. Five lac as earnest money and remaining sale consideration was to be paid to him at the time of execution of sale deed for which, time period was fixed till 15.6.2000 and in this regard, defendant also executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses after receiving the earnest money. The possession was to be delivered to the plaintiff at the time of registration of the sale deed and expenses were to be borne by the plaintiff. That after execution of the agreement to sell, the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. On 15.6.2000 to 18.6.2000, there were holidays in the office of Sub Registrar, Amargarh and plaintiff remained present at the said office on 19.6.2000 along with balance sale consideration and other expenses, but the defendant did not turn up to perform his part of the agreement. The plaintiff also got his presence marked through an affidavit. The defendant was asked time and again to perform his part of the agreement and to deliver the possession of the suit property, but he extended threats to alienate the suit property to some body else at a higher rate. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit. On notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement alleging that he had been selling his crops at the shop of M/s Bir Bhan Goyal, Commission Agent,. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit. On notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement alleging that he had been selling his crops at the shop of M/s Bir Bhan Goyal, Commission Agent,. Amargarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, who might have obtained the thumb impressions of the defendant on some blank papers and on the alleged agreement to sell. The plaintiff is man of commission agent and in collusion with each other and deed writer and marginal witnesses, they have manipulated the alleged agreement. The defendant had stopped to sell his crops at said commission agent shop and in order to take revenge, this document has been prepared by them in favour of the plaintiff, which is without consideration, forged and fabricated, inadmissible in evidence and unenforceable in law. The defendants never executed any such agreement in favour of the plaintiff, neither received earnest money and nor he agreed to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. Denying all other allegation, it is alleged that plaintiff has got affidavit executed in order to create the false evidence regarding his willingness to perform the alleged agreement. However, defendant admitted his ownership over the property, but alleged that he has no intention to alienate the suit property." 3. On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- "(1) Whether the defendant has entered into agreement to sell dated 11.6.1999 with plaintiff? If so, its effect? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP (3) Whether the defendant is owner of the suit land? OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD (5) Whether the suit is not legally maintainable? OPD (6) Relief." 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit. 5. The case of the plaintiff is that on 11.6.1999, defendant had agreed to sell the suit land to him at the rate of Rs.32,000/- per bigha. The total sale consideration was Rs.6,40,000/-. The agreement to sell was reduced into writing. Rs.5,00,000/- were received by the defendant as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.6.2000. In order to prove his case, plaintiff appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and examined PW-1 Baldev Kumar, attesting witness to the agreement to sell. The agreement to sell was reduced into writing. Rs.5,00,000/- were received by the defendant as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.6.2000. In order to prove his case, plaintiff appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and examined PW-1 Baldev Kumar, attesting witness to the agreement to sell. Both the plaintiff as well as PW-1 Baldev Kumar had deposed with regard to the execution of the agreement to sell. PW-3-Dr. Atul Kumar Singla, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert, examined the questioned thumb impression of the defendant on the agreement to sell with his standard thumb impression and as per his report questioned thumb impression and standard thumb impression had been affixed by the same person. 6. The case of the defendant, on the other hand, was that his thumb impression had been obtained on blank paper and the agreement to sell in question was forged and fabricated document. Learned Additional District Judge in its judgment has observed that after perusal of the agreement to sell, in question, it was found that it had been executed on a stamp paper worth Rs.300/-, purchased by the defendant from Shiv Kumar Bansal for execution of agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, learned Additional District Judge, has rightly observed that agreement to sell could not be said to be a forged and fabricated document as the stamp paper had been purchased by the defendant himself for execution of agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has been successful in proving the execution of the agreement to sell by examining the attesting witness as well as the hand writing expert. Plaintiff had also proved on record his affidavit, Ex.P-2 whereby his presence has been marked by the Executive Magistrate on 19.6.2000. Although the sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.6.2000, from 15.6.2000 to 18.6.2000 there were holidays. The courts below had rightly inferred that the plaintiff was willing to perform his part of the agreement. Impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below do not call for any interference. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed