Delhi High Court
Santosh Rani vs Sita Ram on 19 November, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 19, 2014
+ RSA 315/2014 & CM No. 17909/2014
SANTOSH RANI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajeev Verma, Advocate
versus
SITA RAM ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
The concurrent findings returned by the courts below are that the
appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove the Agreement to Sell of 16th
January, 2001, whose specific performance was sought by the appellant.
The factual narration of this case already finds mention in the
opening paragraphs of impugned judgment and needs no reiteration. All
that is required to be noticed is that the purported sale consideration of
the suit property was paid by way of cash. Admittedly, a friendly loan of
`45,000/- was taken by respondent from appellant while mortgaging the
suit property and respondent-defendant had failed to repay the said loan
amount. The purported sale consideration of the suit property was
RSA No.315/2014 Page 1
`1,00,000/- and according to the appellant-plaintiff, the remaining
amount of `55,000/- was paid by appellant in cash to respondent without
obtaining any receipt in respect of the payment of `55,000/- in
installments. The stand of respondent-defendant is of denial of signatures
on the Agreement to Sell of 16th January, 2001.
At the hearing, learned counsel for appellant had vehemently
contended that the deposition of appellant-plaintiff remains unchallenged
in cross-examination and so, in view of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence
Act, it ought to have been relied upon by the courts below. The
Agreement to Sell of 16th January, 2001 is purportedly witnessed by two
persons and those persons have not come forward to depose. Learned
counsel for appellant submits that the attesting witnesses to the aforesaid
Agreement to Sell are no longer in this world. It has been suggested to
appellant-plaintiff in cross-examination by respondent that the documents
in question are false and have not been signed by respondent-defendant.
Pertinently, in the cross-examination of respondent-defendant, there is no
cross-examination regarding respondent-defendant not signing the
Agreement to Sell in question. No effort has been made by appellant-
plaintiff to get the respondent-defendant's handwriting on the Agreement
to Sell compared with the admitted handwriting from the Handwriting
Expert.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the existence of Agreement
to Sell in question, whose specific performance is sought by appellant, is
not duly proved on record. Therefore, the findings returned by both the
courts below against the appellant-plaintiff do not suffer from any
RSA No.315/2014 Page 2
perversity. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal.
This appeal and application are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 19, 2014
r
RSA No.315/2014 Page 3
