Punjab-Haryana High Court
Har Kaur vs Gura Singh And Anr. on 27 February, 1986
Equivalent citations: AIR1988P&H41, AIR 1988 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 41, (1986) 2 CURLJ(CCR) 396, 1986 PUNJ LJ 382, (1986) 90 PUN LR 30, ILR (1987) 1 P&H 93, (1987) ILR 1 P&H 93
JUDGMENT
1. This is defendants' second appeal against whom suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale has been decreed by both the courts below.
2. The three plaintiffs, sons of Hari Singh, filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 8th April, 1968, Exhibit P.1, executed by Bachittar Singh (deceased) in their favour agreeing to sell the suit land for Rs.20,000/- . A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was said to have been paid as earnest money at the time of the execution, Bachittar Singh died on 20th May, 1968 and the suit was instituted on 6th June 1972, as t he s ale deed was to be executed o n or before 15th June 1969. This suit was filed against the legal heirs of the deceased Bachittar Singh, i.e. his widow and the daughter. According to the plaint, the sale deed. could not be executed due to the death of Bachittar Singh before 15th June, 1969 and hence suit for specific performance was being filed against the legal heirs of the deceased. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and to purchase the land in dispute In the alternative to a decree.for specific performance, the plaintiffs sought recovery of Rs. 10,000/- as refund of the earnest money and also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 3600/- . The suit was contested primarily on the ground that Bachittar Singh had not agreed to sell the land to the plaintiffs nor had executed the agreement of sale nor had received the advance money of Rs 10,000/- . It was further pleaded that 3 or 4 months before his death, he had remained bed-ridden. Thus they pleaded that the alleged agreement of sale was a forged document. A plea was also taken that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement. The trial Court found that agreement of sale Exhibit P-1 was validity executed by late Bachittar Singh. It was further found that there was no material to show that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. It was also held that the discretionary relief of specific performance of contract in the instant case could not be declined to the plaintiffs under the law. In view of these findings, the plaintiffs suit for specific performance of the contract was decreed on payment of Rs 10,000/- . In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants have filed this second appeal in this Court.
3. During the pendency of this appear both the defendants i.e. Har Kaur and Amarjit Kaur her daughter had died and thus the brothers of Har Kaur widow of Bachittar Singh have come on the record as the legal representatives of the deceased Har Kaur.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that Bachittar Singh who was suffering because of fracture of his spinal cord, was bed-ridden and was not in a position to execute any document and the agreement Exhibit P.1 dated 8th April, 1968 was never executed by Bachittar Singh and was a forged document. It was pointed out that as a matter of fact Hari Singh father of the plaintiffs was the author of the said document. He is a person who is not trustworthy. He forged certain documents earlier against one Arur Singh and in a suit filed by Arur Singh it was so held that Hari Singh committed the offence of perjury in fabricating the alleged sale deed. Thus argued the learned counsel, the relevant facts have not been considered by the courts below while appreciating the evidence Moreover the suit was filed after the death of Bachittar Singh and that too just before 10 days from the expiry of the limitation. In case the plaintiffs had paid the sum of Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money then there was no reason. for them to wait for such a long time for filing the suit. It was also contended that in any case since Bachittar Singh as well as his widow and daughter had died, therefore, in these circumstances relief of specific performance of the agreement is not warranted. Reference was also made to the agreement, Exhibit Pl to show that it consists of three sheets but the last sheet is not signed by Bachittar Singh.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submitted that it has been duly proved on the record by the cogent evidence of P. W.2 to P. W.4 and P. W.1 that agreement Exhibit Pl was duly executed by Bachittar Singh and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by way of earnest money. It was contested that even if the last sheet of the agreement was not signed by Bachittar Singh, it was of no consequence. In support of this contention reference was made to J. and D. Eziekeil carrying business under the name and style of Ezekiel and Company v. Anaoda Charan Sen, AIR 1923 Cal 35, Jogesh Prasad Singh v. Ramohandar Prasad Singh, AIR 1950 Pat 370 and Birbal v. Thamansingh, AIR 1955 Raj 91.
According to the learned counsel both the courts below on the appreciation of the evidence had found that the agreement was validly executed and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by way of earnest money to Bachittar Singh. This being findings of fact should not be interfered with in second appeal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record Hari Singh had appeared in the witness box as P.W. 4. No such question was put of him that he forged the document and signed on behalf of Bachittar Singh. Not only that no objections whatsoever were taken in the courts below that three sheet soft he document Exhibit Pl w ere not signed by Bachittar Singh However, in law it was of no consequence as held in J. and D. Eziekeil's case (supra) that speaking generally, a signature is the writing or otherwise affixing a person's name or a mark to represent his name, by himself or by his authority with the intention of authenticating a document as being that of or as binding on the person whose name or mark is so written or affixed The insertion of the name, in any part of the writing in a manner to authenticate the instrument is sufficient. Although the signature be in the beginning or middle of the instrument it is binding as if at the foot of it. The question always is, whether the party, not having signed it regularly at the foot, yet meant to be bound by it as it stood, a whether it was left, so unsigned because he refused to complete it but when it is ascertained that he meant to be bound by it as a complete contract, the signature is. for purposes of execution, effective. From the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants, at the most suspicion could be created as to why the suit was not filed with promptitude or as to why the third sheet of the agreement Exhibit P. l was not signed by Bachittar Singh but that by itself u no ground to interfere with in the second appeal or to set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below. Thus taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the courts below as to be interfered with in second appeal.
7. As regards the contention that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of specific performance; Particularly, when both the defendants Har Kaur and her daughter Amarjit Kaur had died, has no force. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are the nearest collaterals of the deceased Bachittar Singh, whereas, the legal representatives of the deceased Har Kaur who are her brother reside in another village Harike Kalan claiming the property under the will executed in their favour by Har Kaur during the pendency of the appeal. Thus, it could not be success fully arranged that the plaintiffs were hot entitled to the relief of specific performance in these circumstances.
8. Consequently the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
9. Appeal dismissed.