Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod Sharma vs Tina Rani on 9 September, 2014
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
VARINDER SINGH
2014.09.19 10:19
RSA No. 2248 of 2011 (1) I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 2248 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 9.9.2014
Vinod Sharma .. Appellant
versus
Tina Rani .. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The plaintiff-vendee is before this Court against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-vendor was allowed while reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court and the suit filed by him was dismissed.
In the case in hand, the appellant filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 22.9.2004. In terms of the aforesaid agreement to sell, the respondent-vendor agreed to sell her house to the appellant for a total sale consideration of ` 1,50,000/-, out of which ` 33,000/- was paid as earnest money. The last date for execution of sale-deed was 22.11.2004. The suit was filed on 8.9.2007. The same was decreed by the learned Trial Court, however, the learned Appellate Court while accepting the appeal, reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which is under challenge before this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the case in hand the ground on which the agreement to sell was held to be a forged document, cannot stand in judicial scrutiny. The vendor and the witnesses produced by her admitted her signatures on the agreement to sell. Merely because there was difference in spacing, will not mean that the agreement was a forged document. He further submitted that even if it was mentioned VARINDER SINGH 2014.09.19 10:19 RSA No. 2248 of 2011 (2) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the agreement to sell that the possession of the property had been given to the vendee, which in fact had not been given, the same will not mean that the agreement to sell is a forged document as normally such lines are mentioned by the scribes in the agreement to sell. Part of the earnest money namely ` 30,000/- out of total ` 33,000/-, was given by way of a cheque. The plea of fraud was raised by the respondent, however, she had not been able to discharge the heavy burden on her.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the appeal. It has been recorded by the lower Appellate Court that the appellant herein retired from Irrigation Department. Besides pension, he did not have any other source of income. In fact, he was indulging in money lending. It had come on record that apart from the respondent, the appellant had filed a suit even against the daughter of the respondent seeking a similar relief. He had advanced loans even to DW3 Roshan Lal and DW4 Sumit. Documents were produced on record pertaining to loan advanced by the appellant to one Kamlesh Chandervanshi as well. This fact was not denied by the appellant. The plea raised by the respondent shows that to secure the loan amount, the appellant used to take signatures on the blank papers on which the agreements were used to be forged. The house in question, which the respondent allegedly agreed to sell, was purchased by her in the year 2002, which was agreed to be sold in 2004. It was the stand of the respondent that she had purchased the same for ` 4,00,000/-, however, was sold to the appellant for ` 1,50,000/- after two years of its purchase. The earnest money mentioned in the agreement to sell has no co-relation with the total sale consideration which is normally a percentage of total sale consideration i.e. 10% or 20%. In case the total sale consideration was ` 1,50,000/- and the earnest money is ` 33,000/-. There is nothing to suggest as to why out of earnest money of ` 33,000/-, ` 30,000/- were paid by way of cheque and balance ` 3,000/- in cash. Further the recital in the agreement to sell that the possession has been given to the vendee, has also been found to be wrong.
Learned Lower Appellate Court further found that the spacing in the lines where the vendor and vendee have put their signatures and further where the witnesses have signed cause suspicion. There was more VARINDER SINGH 2014.09.19 10:19 RSA No. 2248 of 2011 (3) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh spacing than required where the vendor and vendee had signed, whereas the spacing where the witnesses had signed is quite less, which suggested that the document was already blank signed, on which typing was done later on. Further four witnesses have signed the agreement to sell, two out of whom are husband and son of the respondent, whereas two were shown to be independent, which is not done in the normal routine. The manner in which the witnesses have signed or their names have been mentioned is also not the normal system in which such documents are drafted. One of the witnesses to the agreement was found to be a person who had criminal record being a witness in a similar kind of cases. There is cutting in the serial number of the witnesses which suggested that their names were interpolated later on. The agreement to sell was not entered in the register of the deed-writer. No copy of the register was produced.
The aforesaid circumstances as have been noticed by the learned Lower Appellate Court are sufficient to opine that the document was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and that it was not an agreement to sell executed by the respondent, specific performance of which was sought by the appellant. No substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
9.9.2014 ( Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge