1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT v. RSA-1667-2025
Case Details
Page 1 of 8 8 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 128 Mohinder Dara Chand @ d @ Dara Singh & Another Vs. RSA-1667-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 15.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Raj Kumar Kakkar, Advo for the appellant (through Advocate ugh VC). NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present second appeal has nt l has been filed by the defendant No.2 against t nst the concurrent judgments and d rts nd decrees of the learned Courts below whereb ereby the suit filed by the plaint 2 laintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 herein, for spe r specific performance of Agreemen in ment to Sell dated 15.04.2013 in respect of the f the suit land measuring 20 kanal he nal 11 marla as described in the head note of of the plaint; and for possessio ith ssion of the suit land; and with alternate relie relief of recovery of Rs.25,68,750 of ,750/- i.e. Rs.24 lakh double of amount of Rs. f Rs.12 lakh paid as earnest money es ney and Rs.1,68,750/- as damages and compens ensation for non-fulfilment of the he f the Agreement on part of the
Legal Reasoning
defendants al s along with interest @ 2% per m ith r month; has been decreed with costs by both oth the Courts below. By way of t nd of the impugned judgments and decrees, the the plaintiff has been held ent nd entitled to possession of land measuring 20 20 kanal 11 marlas by way of speci nt pecific performance of Agreement SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) to Sell dated 1 ed 15.04.2013 upon deposit of bala Page 2 of 8 8 (cid:1) hin balance sale consideration within 6 months. 2. Learned counsel for the ap ter e appellant/defendant No.2 inter alia submits t its that Agreement to Sell dated 1 ve ed 15.04.2013 is alleged to have been execute uted by Ram Narain predecessor ts. sor-in-interest of the defendants. However, exec xecution of any such Agreement h ge nt has been denied at every stage by the defend fendants. Even the same was not he not proved by the plaintiffs. The receipt of ear earnest money of Rs.12 lakh was a nd as also denied. Even Dara Chand plaintiff/PW1 W1 has admitted in his cross-examin ve amination that he could not prove source of Rs.1 Rs.12 lakh which was allegedly pa est ly paid to Ram Narain as earnest money. Furthe rther, in the Agreement, it was re nd s recited that possession of land had been deli delivered to the plaintiffs; whereas are reas in actual fact, defendants are in possession ion of the suit land. Even otherwise he wise, when there is a recital in the Agreement re t regarding delivery of possession, for ion, the stamp paper requisite for the Sale Deed eed was required to be affixed on he on the Agreement. However, the Agreement w t was scribed on stamp paper w he r worth Rs.25/- only. Thus, the Agreement wa t was required to be impounded. H nd d. However, this was illegally and wrongly not do elow. done by the learned Courts below 3. Furthermore, Dara Chand as and in his cross-examination has admitted that that Agreement was not scribed in h ce in his presence or in the presence of the witness nesses. He has admitted that he sa irst e saw the Agreement for the first time at the re e receipt of notary where the wi He e witnesses were also sitting. He SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) further stated ated that money did not exchang Page 3 of 8 8 (cid:1) of hange hands in the presence of Notary and the d the earnest money was paid inside side Tehsil Complex. 4. Dara Chand could even n nd en not prove the readiness and willingness of s of the plaintiffs on the stipulated iffs ated date of 15.04.2014. Plaintiffs did not subm ubmit any application for markin he rking their presence before the learned Sub- -Registrar within the stipulated d e ed date. Thus, the plaintiffs have failed to prove rove their readiness and willingnes rial gness. Further, there are material discrepancies cies in the evidence. Thus, the le in e learned Courts below erred in passing the im e impugned judgments and decre nt ecrees on the basis of discrepant evidence. The he defendants had produced D ing d DW1 Moti Ram an attesting witness of Sal ale Deed dated 08.09.1992 to pro of prove the standard signatures of Ram Narain. D in. DW2 Varun Gugneja Handwritin d riting & Fingerprint expert proved that disputed ted signatures of Ram Narain on th ith n the Agreement do not tally with standard sign signature of Ram Narain on the Lal the Sale Deed. DW4 Krishan Lal further prove roved the standard signature of R Ex. of Ram Narain. DW5 Satpal Ex. Sarpanch prov proved the due execution of writing ch, iting dated 26.09.2012 vide which, the accounts b nts between Ram Narain and Hazari as zari Lal father of the plaintiffs was settled. Balra alram DWo proved that he had ed had scribed the writing dated 26.09.2012 wh 2 when a dispute between Hazari re, ari Lal and Ram Narain was there, there was no no question of executing agreem in eement of sale by Ram Narain in favour of Dara Dara Chand and plaintiffs. Rajinder K to der Kumar defendant stepped into witness box a ox as DW7 to prove his case. The l gly he learned Lower Courts wrongly SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) and illegally r lly relied upon the statement and Page 4 of 8 8 (cid:1) ta and report of Anil Kumar Gupta Handwriting & ng & Fingerprint Expert and wron he rongly and illegally ignored the report and sta statement of Varun Gugneja DW2. gly W2. The ld. Lower Courts wrongly observed that that signature of Ram Narain on wr uld n writing dated 26.09.2012 should have been go got compared with disputed sign he signature of Ram Narain on the agreement. T t. The ld. Courts wrongly raise he aised a presumption that the defendants av s avoided comparison of question ary ion signatures with contemporary standard sign signatures. It is accordingly pray be prayed that present appeal be accepted and and both the impugned judgments 25 nts and decrees dated 23.01.2025 and 30.07.201 .2018 passed by learned Additional nd onal District Judge, Ferozepur and Civil Judge (Jun (Junior Division), Ferozepur be set a set aside. 5. 6. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned co nd counsel for the appellant and perused the ca he case file in great detail. I find no m de no merit in the submissions made on behalf of th of the appellant/defendant No.2. 7. All the arguments raised o are ed on behalf of the appellant are contrary to th o the findings on record. The Agree 13 reement to Sell dated 15.04.2013 was duly prov proved on record. In fact, it can be nt be said that the said Agreement dated 15.4.20 4.2013, had been admitted by the en the defendants in their written statement as, as, it was averred that the plaintif am intiffs had taken signature of Ram Narain on bla blank papers. The signature of ed of Ram Narain on the disputed Agreement to t to Sell was proved by the plaintif nil intiffs from evidence of PW4 Anil SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Kumar Gupta pta, Handwriting and Finger Prin Page 5 of 8 8 (cid:1) his Print Expert who submitted his report (Ex.PW .PW4/B) thereby reporting that disp n disputed signature of Ram Narain was similar in r in writing characteristic and had he d been written by one and the same person. son. The defendants had also exam ing examined their own handwriting expert DW2 V 2 Varun, who vide his report (Ex.DW he x.DW2/A) had concluded that the disputed and nd standard signatures did not ma ort match. However, the said report could not be r be relied upon as the disputed sign old signature was compared with old standard sign signature of the year 1992. Old s en ld standard signature was taken despite the fa e fact that a more recent admitted as itted signature of Ram Narain was available with ith the defendants on the writing as ing dated 26.09.2012. Thus, it has been correctl ectly held by the learned Courts as urts below that Agreement was “impliedly adm admitted” by the defendants. 8. Brief facts of the case as p at as pleaded in the plaint are that Ram Narain hu in husband of defendant No.1 and f nd nd father of defendants No.2 and 3 being owner ner in possession of suit land meas ad easuring 20 kanal 11 marlas, had entered into A to Agreement to Sell dated 15.04.20 4.2013 with the plaintiffs. 9. The Agreement to Sell he ell was also proved from the evidence of a of attesting witness Rakesh Kumar his mar PW2, who had tendered his affidavit (Ex.P (Ex.PW2/A) and had deposed tha ed that Agreement to Sell dated 15.04.2013 w 3 was executed by Ram Narain in nd in in favour of the plaintiffs; and earnest mone oney of Rs.12 lakh was received by ce; d by Ram Narain in his presence; and after adm admitting the contents of the Agree ue, greement to be correct and true, SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) he had affixed fixed his signatures upon the same; Page 6 of 8 8 (cid:1) for me; and date of sale was fixed for 15.04.2014. It 4. It is to be noted that the oth y other attesting witness namely Rameshwar w ar was examined by the defendants lso nts as DW8. However, he had also stated in his e his examination-in-chief that disput 1) isputed Agreement to Sell (Ex.P1) bears his signa signatures as attesting witness and aid and plaintiff Dara Chand had paid earnest mone oney of Rs.12 lakh in his presence as nce to Ram Narain and that it was agreed betwee tween the parties to sell the suit lan er it land at the rate of Rs.10 lakh per acre. Even in h in his cross-examination, DW8 has of has admitted that the contents of the Agreemen ment were read over and explained ce ined to Ram Narain in his presence and in presenc sence of the other witnesses and a of nd after admitting the contents of the Agreemen ment to be true and correct and est and after receiving the earnest money, Ram am Narain had affixed his signatu his atures on the Agreement in his presence whic which was then got attested from N ain m Notary Public; and Ram Narain also put his his signatures in the register of t he of the Notary Public. Thus, the Agreement to t to Sell stood duly proven from th nts m the evidence of the defendants themselves. 10. PW3 Vikas Kumar, Stamp V vit mp Vendor had tendered affidavit (Ex.PW3/A) t ) thereby deposing that on 15 ad 15.04.2013, Ram Narain had purchased sta stamp papers of Rs.25/- for Agree he greement to Sell in favour of the plaintiffs; and and Ram Narain had put his signa he signatures on the overleaf of the stamp paper. er. PW3 had also identified his sta /A) s stamp and signatures (Ex.P10/A) against purcha rchase of stamp paper of Rs.25/-. PW his . PW3 had duly made entry in his SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) register at ser serial No.361 dated 15.04.2013 wh Page 7 of 8 8 (cid:1) by 3 which was sealed and signed by him as Ex.P10/ P10/A. 11. It has also been contende he nded by learned counsel for the appellants tha that the Scribe was not examined he ined. It is my opinion thatas the signature of R of Ram Narain upon the dispute dly puted Agreement was “impliedly admitted” by by the defendants in their written of ritten statement, the necessity of examining th the scribe was not imperative ve, tive. As already noticed above, defendants in s in their written statement had ad had admitted that plaintiffs had obtained signa signatures of Ram Narain on variou rs, rious blank papers, typed papers, etc.; thereby eby impliedly admitting the signa he ignature of Ram Narain on the disputed Agre greement. In any event, as also re nt o recorded above, the Agreement proved from substantial other evidence on rec n record. 12. As regards argument of th he of the appellant in respect of the source of fun funds of earnest money of Rs.12 ed s.12 lakh, plaintiffs had produced PW5 Mohinde inder Kumar with whose firm the p ess he plaintiffs were having business dealings and h nd he had entries in favour of the p , he plaintiffs for requisite amounts, which were c re corroborated by ledger entry an lso y and vouchers, which were also proved. The he plaintiffs had also produced ow ced enough evidence to show availability of y of balance sale consideration for of for execution and registration of Sale Deed. Pre . Presence of the plaintiffs in the Te of e Tehsil was also proven by way of Affidavit date dated 15.04.2014 (Ex.PW6/B); a ed ); as also vide Affidavit dated 18.05.2015 wh 5 whereby they had marked their p to ir presence after giving notices to SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) the defendant dants to execute the Sale Deed. Thu Page 8 of 8 8 (cid:1) of Thus, readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs t iffs to perform the contract was also also proven on record. 13.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the ap or e appellant is unable to dispute or controvert the t the aforesaid facts and findings. 14. 15. 15.05.2025 Sunena
Decision
In view of the above, prese resent appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)