Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1776 (PNJ)

Ranjeet Singh v. Roshan Lal

2012-12-06

L.N.Mittal

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- CM No.14014-C of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. RSA No.4825 of 2011 Defendants No.1 and 3 to 6 have filed this second appeal having failed in both the Courts below. 2. Respondent No.1-plaintiff Roshan Lal filed suit against appellants and proforma respondent No.2 as defendant No.2 for possession of 6 kanals 8 marlas land by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 04.03.2004. The plaintiff alleged that Lakhwinder Singh-defendant No.3 and Iqbal Singh father of defendants No.1 and 2 agreed to sell the suit land to plaintiff along with tubewell etc. for Rs.2,50,000/- and received Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money and executed agreement dated 04.03.2004. Sale deed was to be executed upto 03.03.2005. However, on 10.01.2005, the aforesaid vendors Iqbal Singh and Lakhwinder Singh received further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and extended the date of sale deed to 15.05.2005. Iqbal Singh has since died and has been inherited by his sons-defendants No.1 and 2. Plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but Iqbal Singh and defendants No.1 to 3 committed breach thereof. Vendors Iqbal Singh and Lakhwinder Singh transferred the suit land to defendants No.4 to 6 by way of sale deed dated 07.07.2006 to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has alleged that the said sale deed is not binding on him. 3. It may be mentioned that defendant No.4 is wife of defendant No.3 whereas defendants No.5 and 6 are wives of defendants No.1 and 2 respectively. 4. Defendants No.1 to 3 broadly denied the plaint averments. They denied that Iqbal Singh and Lakhwinder Singh (vendors) had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff or had received any earnest money or executed the impugned agreement or received further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and extended the date of execution of sale deed. It was alleged that the vendors used to sell their crop at the shop of Balwant Singh-commission agent who used to obtain their signatures/thumb impressions on blank stamp papers as security for advances made to the vendors who used to repay the same by selling the crop. The impugned agreement has been fabricated on the said blank thumb marked papers in connivance with Balwant Singh-commission agent and others. 5. The impugned agreement has been fabricated on the said blank thumb marked papers in connivance with Balwant Singh-commission agent and others. 5. Defendants No.4 to 6 claimed to have purchased the suit land from the vendors for consideration and claimed protection as bonafide purchasers of the suit land. 6. Both the courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, defendants (except defendant No.2) have filed this second appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 8. The plaintiff in order to prove his case himself appeared as PW-4 and examined Vikramjit Singh PW-2 and Balwant Singh PW-3 both attesting witnesses of the agreement and also examined Arvind Kaushik, Deed Writer as PW-1 scribe of the agreement. All of them broadly stated according to plaintiff’s version. 9. On the contrary, defendants No.1, 3 and 5 stepped into the witness box and broadly stated according to their own version. 10. Plaintiff has led cogent evidence by examining both the attesting witnesses and Deed Writer/scribe of the agreement, besides himself appearing in the witness box. This cogent evidence of the plaintiff has not been rebuted by self-serving oral statements of defendants No.1, 3 and 5. On the contrary, defendants, by their pleadings, have admitted the thumb impressions of the vendors on the impugned agreement. This lends further credence to the version of the plaintiff. Defendants’ version that thumb impressions of the vendors had been obtained by Balwant Singh-commission agent on blank papers, cannot be accepted. Perusal of photostat copy of the agreement including endorsement dated 10.01.2005 on the back of the agreement, as shown by counsel for the appellant, reveals that it cannot be said that thumb impressions of the vendors had been obtained on blank papers. First sheet of the agreement contains the thumb impressions of vendors at the bottom whereas second sheet of the agreement contains their thumb impressions almost in the middle at the end of the body of the agreement. There are also thumb impressions of the vendors on the endorsement dated 10.01.2005 at the back of the agreement just below the said endorsement. In view of the very location of the thumb impressions, as aforesaid, it may be said that the said thumb impressions had not been obtained on blank stamp papers. There are also thumb impressions of the vendors on the endorsement dated 10.01.2005 at the back of the agreement just below the said endorsement. In view of the very location of the thumb impressions, as aforesaid, it may be said that the said thumb impressions had not been obtained on blank stamp papers. Moreover, entry made in the register of the deed writer regarding the agreement has also been thumb marked by the vendors. Therefore, the version of the defendants regarding thumb impressions on blank papers cannot be accepted. 11. Counsel for the appellants contended that Balwant Singh- PW3 has admitted that vendors Iqbal Singh and Lakhwinder Singh had been selling their crop at his shop and had also been taking advances from him. However, this admission does not affect the validity of the impugned agreement in any manner. Balwant Singh has not admitted that he used to obtain thumb impressions of the vendors on blank papers. Consequently merely because the vendors used to sell their crops at the shop of the Balwant Singh-commission agent, would have no bearing on the validity of the agreement and on the instant lis. 12. Counsel for the appellants also contended that last date for sale deed was 15.05.2005 and the suit was filed on 04.12.2006. However, this circumstance also does not affect the validity of the impugned agreement. Merely because the suit was filed one and half years after the expiry of the extended date for sale deed, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, as well as for other reasons recorded by both the Courts below, suit of the plaintiff has been rightly decreed. Concurrent finding recorded by the lower Courts in this regard is fully justified by the evidence led by the plaintiff, which has not been properly rebutted by the defendants. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the said finding. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. The appeal is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------