Iqbal Kaur And Another vs Rattan Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1093 P&H

                                                                              135



       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                           Regular Second Appeal No. 429 of 2022 (O&M)

                                                 Date of Decision: 02.03.2022


Iqbal Kaur and Another
                                                                 ... Appellant(s)

                                        Versus

Rattan Singh
                                                             ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:     Mr. Aditya Dassaur, Advocate
             for the appellant(s).

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. The defendants, in a suit for possession by way of specific

performance of agreement to sell, assails the concurrent findings of fact,

arrived at by both the Courts below, while decreeing the suit.

2. The execution of the agreement to sell on receipt of the earnest

money is not disputed by the defendants. The defendants are disputing the

correctness of the writing dated 05.04.2013, whereby the period for

execution of the sale deed was extended from 10.04.2013 to 10.05.2013 on

payment of ₹2,00,000/-. The defendants, in order to prove that the aforesaid

writing is not signed by them, examined Mr. Kranti K. Sharma, Handwriting

and Fingerprint Expert as DW.1.

3. The learned counsel representing the appellants contends that

both the Courts below have failed to examine the effect of the opinion

expressed by the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert to the extent that the

writing dated 05.04.2013 is not thumb marked/signed by the defendants. He

1 of 3

further submits that no reason for extending the period for execution of the

sale deed has come on record.

4. On 05.04.2013, the two documents were executed. The first

was the writing extending the agreed date from 10.04.2013 to 10.05.2013 for

execution and registration of the sale deed. The second was the receipt,

allegedly issued by the defendants acknowledging the additional payment of

₹ 2,00,000/-. Admittedly, the signatures on the aforesaid receipt (Ex.P4) has

not been compared by an Expert. Further, the opinion of the Expert is not

binding. The witness to the writing, dated 05.04.2013 has appeared in

support of the case of the plaintiff. Despite the searching questions in the

cross-examination, the credibility of the aforesaid witness could not be

impeached.

5. Smt. Kamaljit Kaur (the defendant No.2) has also signed the

writing dated 05.04.2013 and also the receipt of the even date. She has not

stepped into the witness box. The defendant No.1, while appearing in the

witness box as DW.2, denied her signatures on the written statement, filed

by her along with Smt.Kamaljit Kaur.

6. On preponderance of the evidence, both the Courts below have

drawn the concurrent conclusion.

7. It is evident that the First Appellate Court has discussed the

report of the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, in the para 15 of its

judgment. It has also been noticed that the defendants have failed to get their

signatures, appearing on the receipt dated 05.04.2013, compared. In such

circumstances, it would not proper to hold that the report of the Handwriting

and Fingerprint Expert has not been discussed.

2 of 3

8. As regards the next argument of the learned counsel that no

reason for extending the period has been disclosed by the plaintiff, it would

be noticed that the defendants are altogether denying the execution of the

writing dated 5.04.2013. In the regular second appeal, this Court cannot

permit the appellants to take up an entirely new plea.

9. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, no ground to interfere is

made out. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.

10. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge March 02, 2022 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3