Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3287 (PNJ)

Balwant Singh v. Karnail Singh

2010-12-08

L.N.MITTAL

body2010
Judgment L.N.Mittal, J. 1. CM No. 11914.C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. RSA No. 4014 of 2010 Defendant Balwant Singh having failed in both the courts below has approached this Court by way of instant second appeal. 2. Respondent-plaintiff Karnail Singh filed suit against defendant-appellant alleging that the defendant agreed to sell 8 kanals land in suit to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,55,000/- and received Rs. 1,42,500/- as earnest money and executed agreement dated 4.12.2001. Sale deed was to be executed on 4.6.2002. However, by mutation consent date for sale deed was extended to 20.8.2002 and again to 20.11.2002 by written endorsements on the back of the agreement. The plaintiff went to the office of Sub Registrar on 20.11.2002 for getting sale deed executed and registered as per agreement but the defendant kept on putting off and did not do the needful. He did not turn up to execute sale deed and committed breach of contract. Legal notice dated 22.3.2004 also did not bear any fruit. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement to sell and in the alternative recovery of double the earnest money. 3. The defendant controverted the plaint allegations. The defendant denied having agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff or having received Rs. 1,42,500/- or having executed agreement or endorsements for extension of date of sale deed. The defendant alleged that relations between the parties were cordial. The defendant and his brother Balbir Singh were supporting the plaintiff in his litigation against one Amarjit Singh and used to accompany the plaintiff to the court premises in the said litigation. Defendants brother Balbir Singh even appeared as witness for the plaintiff in the said litigation. Under that garb, the plaintiff might have obtained signatures of the defendant and his brother on some blank papers including stamp papers and forged impugned agreement as well as another agreement on behalf of defendants brother Balbir Singh regarding which also the plaintiff has filed suit against Balbir Singh. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 31.8.2009 decreed the plaintiffs suit. First appeal preferred by defendant stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 10.4.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 31.8.2009 decreed the plaintiffs suit. First appeal preferred by defendant stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 10.4.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the plaintiff has admitted in his cross-examination that defendants brother Balbir Singh had appeared as witness for the plaintiff in litigation of plaintiff with Amarjit Singh. However, this admission of plaintiff does not help the defendant-appellant in any manner. On the contrary, if the defendant and his brother had been supporting the plaintiff in his litigation against Amarjit Singh, there is no reason why the plaintiff would forge agreements on behalf of defendant and his brother and would file false suits against them. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant contended that subsequently something might have happened between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendant and his brother on the other hand. The contention is untenable because there is not even a whisper in the pleadings or the evidence that subsequently relations between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendant and his brother on the other hand had become strained or soured on any ground whatsoever. On the contrary, the plaintiff would have felt obliged and would have been grateful to the defendant and his brother for supporting him in his litigation with Amarjit. Singh and there was no reason for the plaintiff to have forged or fabricated the impugned agreement and another agreement on behalf of Bailla Singh. 7. In addition to the aforesaid, the defendant stated that they had appeared as witnesses for plaintiff in his litigation with Amarjit Singh ten years ago. It would depict that at that time the question of obtaining signatures of defendant and his brother of blank papers to forge the agreements in question would not have arisen. 8. Signatures of defendant on the impugned agreement have not been denied. Plaintiffs case is supported by Jagjit Singh Lamberdar PW2 who is marginal witness of the impugned agreement. The plaintiff has of course made statement in support of his own case. The plaintiff has also examined Mohinder Kumar Sikri, Document Writer as PW3. 8. Signatures of defendant on the impugned agreement have not been denied. Plaintiffs case is supported by Jagjit Singh Lamberdar PW2 who is marginal witness of the impugned agreement. The plaintiff has of course made statement in support of his own case. The plaintiff has also examined Mohinder Kumar Sikri, Document Writer as PW3. He had scribed the impugned agreement and he has also supported plaintiffs case. There is no reason why Jagjit Singh Lamberdar and Mohinder Kumar Sikri would depose falsely against the defendant. 9. The defendants version is also belied by another material circumstance. There is not only the impugned agreement bearing signatures of defendant but also there are two endorsements Ex. P2 and P3 regarding extension of date of sale deed from 4.6.2002 to 20.8.2002 and again from 20.8.2002 to 20.11.2002. These endorsements have been made on the back of the agreement. It cannot be said that all signatures of the defendant had been obtained on blank papers so. as to forge agreement as well as the aforesaid endorsements. 10. There is concurrent finding by both the courts below against the defendant-appellant. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on judgment of this Court in Smt. Harjit Grewal and others v. Dr. Vinod Kumar Batra and others, (2010-2)158 PLR 235.contended that the courts below have not recorded issue-wise finding and therefore, judgments of the courts below are vitiated. This contention is also devoid of merit. The trial court discussed issues no. 1 to 6 together being inter-connected but separate issue-wise finding has been recorded on the said issues by the trial court. The said finding of the trial court has been affirmed by lower appellate court by recording cogent reasons. Consequently, it cannot be said that issuewise finding was not recorded by the courts below. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed.