Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2803 (PNJ)

Naranjan Dass @ Naranjan Singh v. Mohan Singh

2023-09-19

GURBIR SINGH

body2023
Judgment Mr. Gurbir Singh, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below. 2. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of the present appeal, are that the plaintiff/respondent Mohan Singh filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 26.12.2003, executed by the defendants/appellants, for sale of house measuring 13 marlas, for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. An amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid as earnest money. The plaintiff/respondent examined one of the attesting witnesses namely Ajaib Singh as PW-2 and Navdeep Gupta – Handwriting and Finger Print Expert as PW-3. Thumb impressions of the defendants/appellants on the agreement were got compared with their specimen thumb impressions and those were found to be of defendants/appellants. The suit was accordingly decreed. Appeal preferred against the said decree was dismissed. So, the defendants/appellants have approached this Court by way of Regular Second Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants obtained loan from the bank. Mutation of the property in question was already sanctioned in favour of the bank and entered in the jamabandi before filing of the suit. The plaintiff/respondent filed copy of jamabandi for the year 2003, whereas the suit was filed in the year 2006. The said bank was required to be impleaded as a party. It has further been argued that the plaintiff/respondent was in dominating position as the defendants/appellants used to get loan from him and he used to get signatures on stamp papers and other documents as security. In the year 2001, the defendants/appellants took a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff/respondent and at that time also, he obtained their signatures on some blank stamp papers and later on, he converted the same into agreement to sell regarding some property of amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. DW-6 Gurmeet Kaur – Handwriting and Finger Print Expert examined the signatures of plaintiff/respondent on agreement to sell dated 15.12.2001 (Ex.D-A) and gave the report that the same was bearing signatures of plaintiff/respondent. At that time, the matter was got settled with the intervention of respectables. Now, the plaintiff/respondent has again forged the agreement to sell and got the decree. 4. I have heard submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and also perused the case file. 5. At that time, the matter was got settled with the intervention of respectables. Now, the plaintiff/respondent has again forged the agreement to sell and got the decree. 4. I have heard submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and also perused the case file. 5. The instant agreement to sell dated 26.12.2003 (Ex.P-2) is not, in any way, connected to the agreement dated 15.12.2001 (Ex.D-A). Earlier, the plaintiff/respondent took a loan and executed agreement but later, the matter was settled and the same has no adverse effect on the agreement to sell in the instant case. It is to be seen independently whether the defendants/appellants executed agreement to sell dated 26.12.2003 (Ex.P-2). The plaintiff/respondent has examined one of the attesting witness and also examined Handwriting Expert. Both of them have duly proved the execution of agreement to sell dated 26.12.2003 (Ex.P-2) by the defendants/appellants. The evidence of Handwriting Expert remained unrebutted. The defendants/ appellants, instead of rebutting the evidence of agreement to sell dated 26.12.2003 (Ex.P-2), have tried to confuse the matter by examining their own Expert to prove signatures of the plaintiff/respondent on the earlier agreement dated 15.12.2001 (Ex. D-A). When there is denial of the execution of a document and thereafter, their signatures/thumb impressions are proved with the evidence, then defence of defendants/appellants, that agreement was forged, cannot be accepted. Defendants could refuse to put thumb impressions/signatures on blank papers. No one, these days, sign blank stamp papers. In the case in hand, even attesting witness have also duly proved that the defendants/appellants executed agreement to sell dated 26.12.2003 (Ex.P-2). The oral version of a party that his signatures/thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers as security for the loan amount, in the absence of cogent evidence, cannot be accepted. The defendants/appellants have themselves admitted that the amount of loan was cleared and NOC was also issued by the bank. After execution of agreement to sell, if a party mortgages the property, a third person is not a necessary party for a suit for specific performance. Thus, said bank was not necessary party. 6. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that there is neither misreading of evidence, which was led during trial, nor misinterpretation of any evidence. Both the Courts below have passed well reasoned judgments and the same do not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. Thus, said bank was not necessary party. 6. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that there is neither misreading of evidence, which was led during trial, nor misinterpretation of any evidence. Both the Courts below have passed well reasoned judgments and the same do not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with this judgment.