Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1791 (PNJ)

Nirmla Devi v. Karam Singh

2016-07-26

AMIT RAWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Mr. Amit Rawal, J.: (Oral) - Appellant-defendant is aggrieved of the concurrent findings of fact and law, whereby the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.10.2006 in respect of some land, has been decreed. 2. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that the plaintiff sought the aforementioned relief in a suit alleging therein that the total sale consideration was Rs.11,40,000/- and he paid Rs.6,40,000/- as earnest money. The target date was 28.7.2008 and the suit had been instituted on 1.8.2008. The appellant-defendant denied the execution of the agreement to sell and stated that signatures on the blank stamp papers were used for agreement to sell. In this regard, Expert had been examined, who also deposed on the same lines, but both the Courts below have granted the discretionary relief. He further submits that ingredients of Order 6 Rule 4 CPC have been proved, but the Courts below have ignored the same and, thus, urges this Court to formulate the questions of law as culled out in the memorandum of appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, appraised the paper book and of the view that readiness and willingness is consistent/perpetual as the suit had been filed immediately on expiry of the target date. The plaintiff had proved the execution of the agreement to sell through the testimony of the attesting witnesses. 4. On going through the copy of the agreement to sell, I am of the view that it cannot be believed that blank stamp papers were used. The signatures are at the relevant pages where normally the persons affix their signatures/ thumb impressions. In my view, the appellant-defendant has failed to prove the ingredients of Order 6 Rule 4 CPC, much less belie the statements of the attesting witnesses and rightly so, the Courts below have exercised the discretion as noticed above. 5. I do not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. No substantial questions of law arise for determination by this Court. No interference is called for. 6. Appeal stands dismissed.