Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmail Singh vs Rajinder Kumar And Another on 12 March, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4013 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12th March, 2014
Gurmail Singh
Appellant
Versus
Rajinder Kumar and another
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate for the appellant.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 05.03.2011, whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 06.05.2005 for sale of land measuring 7 Kanals 4 Marlas was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents on payment of balance sale consideration.
Suffice it to say that the defendant in her written statement has denied execution of the agreement to sell in question and has taken the plea that the plaintiff-respondents, in connivance with one Manohar Lal, had manipulated her thumb impression by misrepresentation on the pretext of getting her pension fixed. It was Singh Rattan Pal 2014.03.18 13:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.4013 of 2013 (O&M) 2 pleaded that there was no privity of contract for execution of the sale deed between the parties and the plaintiff-respondents have no right to claim specific performance of the said manipulated document.
However, both the courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding to the effect that execution of the agreement to sell and receipt of the earnest money is duly proved and further that the plaintiff-respondents were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, and therefore, they were entitled to the decree as claimed and the defendant has failed to prove her defence, as raised.
Challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has submitted that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:
(a) As to whether when the execution of agreement to sell is denied by the Executor then merely signatures of the executant are not sufficient to decree the suit for specific performance?
(b) As to whether in absence of the production of main witness Barkha Ram Saini, who allegedly made the payment, the execution of agreement to sell can be accepted?
(c) As to whether the scribe Surjit Singh PW-4, who did not sign the agreement to sell, then agreement to sell can be considered to be a legal document in the eyes of law?
Singh Rattan Pal 2014.03.18 13:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.4013 of 2013 (O&M) 3
(d) As to whether the agreement to sell written by the scribe, which is not entered in his register has any evidentiary value in the eyes of law?
(e) As to whether the stamp papers, which were used for the agreement to sell have not been thumb marked by the Appellant, still the agreement to sell can be considered a valid document?
(f) As to whether the stamp papers, which were purchased from other place have any evidentiary value in the eyes of law?
(g) As to whether the plaintiffs/respondents are required in law to prove their own case and not the defendant/appellant is required to prove their case?
(h) As to whether both the judgments and decrees are based on no evidence?
The dispute herein is very short, i.e. whether the defendant executed the agreement to sell in question after receiving the earnest money of `2.50 lacs from the plaintiff-respondents or the same is a result of fraud and misrepresentation, as stated by the appellant?
Plaintiff-respondents have proved the execution of the agreement to sell Ex.P2 with the help of testimony of the plaintiff, attesting witness Manohar Lal and the scribe Surjit Singh; whereas it has been alleged on behalf of the appellant that thumb impression of the defendant was obtained on some blank paper on the pretext of Singh Rattan Pal 2014.03.18 13:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.4013 of 2013 (O&M) 4 completing formalities for old age pension. However, there is nothing on record to support the aforesaid plea, as raised on behalf of the appellant.
The contention of the appellant that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, is not much convincing as there is voluminous evidence on record to prove execution of the document in question. In fact, by taking a defence that her thumb impression was obtained on some blank paper under the pretext of completing formalities for old age pension, the defendant has indirectly admitted execution of the agreement to sell in question and in the absence of any evidence to prove such defence, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the courts below.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further made an attempt to raise argument that willingness and readiness of the plaintiff- respondents has not been proved; however, keeping in view the defence taken whereby execution of the agreement to sell in question has been denied, it was not open to the appellant to raise such an argument.
Thus, the substantial questions of law, as raised, do not arise at all in this appeal.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE March 12, 2014 rps Singh Rattan Pal 2014.03.18 13:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court