Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Bala And Another vs Suresh Kumar on 12 December, 2023
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159171
RSA-1022-2023 (O&M) [1] 2023:PHHC:159171
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-1022-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.12.2023
Suresh Bala and another
...Appellants
Versus
Suresh Kumar
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate for the caveator-respondent.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants
against the judgments dated 08.08.2018 passed by the Court of Addl. Civil
Judge (Sr.Divn.), Jind and 10.01.2023 passed by the Court of Additional
District Judge, Jind whereby concurrent findings have been recorded against
the appellants and the suit filed by respondent Suresh Kumar for specific
performance and declaration stands decreed while the suit filed by the
appellants for declaration to the effect that agreement to sell dated
03.02.2016 alleged to be executed by Jagdish Singh, husband of appellant
No.1 with regard to suit property is false and fictitious document and not
binding on the appellants, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case of respondent are that Suresh Kumar
filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.02.2016
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159171
RSA-1022-2023 (O&M) [2] 2023:PHHC:159171
which was executed by Jagdish Singh in favour of respondent with regard to
suit property. That said Jagdish Singh died after the execution of aforesaid
agreement to sell and appellants are widow and daughter of said Jagdish
Singh. The total sale consideration was Rs.13,50,000/- and Jagdish Singh
received Rs.9,60,000/- as earnest money from respondent at the time of
execution of said agreement to sell.
3. The civil suit filed by respondent Suresh was contested by
appellants and they filed written statement.
4. Appellants filed separate civil suit challenging the validity of
aforesaid agreement to sell dated 03.02.2016. The said civil suit was
contested by respondent who filed written statement.
5. Both the civil suits were consolidated by the learned trial Court
and civil suit titled Suresh Kumar Vs. Suresh Bala & Ors. was ordered to be
treated as lead case. On the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific
performance of agreement to sell dated 03.02.2016 subject matter
of the suit along with consequential relief of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property as
prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to
file the present suit? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean
hands? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is estoped from filing the present suit by
his on act and conduct? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed proof and material facts
from the Court? OPD
6. Relief.
6. In order to prove his case, respondent Suresh Kumar stepped
into witness box as PW1 and also examined PW2 Ram Mehar, attesting
witness of agreement to sell dated 03.02.2016 (Ex.P1), PW3 Naresh Kumar,
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159171
RSA-1022-2023 (O&M) [3] 2023:PHHC:159171
Registry Clerk who deposed regarding registration of agreement to sell
(Ex.P1), PW4 Rajesh Namberdar, who identified his signatures on Ex.P14
being its witness. PW5 Fateh Singh also deposed regarding agreement to sell
Ex.P1 being its scribe. He also produced his register containing the relevant
entry with regard to execution of aforesaid agreement to sell. PW6 Suresh
Kumar, Stamp Vendor proved the stamp papers on which the agreement to
sell in question was scribed. He also proved relevant entry of his register
regarding sale of stamp papers in question. Respondent Suresh Kumar also
tendered documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P20, copy of death certificate of Jagish
Singh (Mark PA).
7. On the other hand, counsel for the appellants examined DW1
Suresh Bala, DW2 Surender, DW3 Subhash and also tendered documents
Ex.DW2/B, Mark-A and Mark-C.
8. After hearing both the counsel for parties, the learned trial
Court came to the conclusion that agreement to sell dated 03.02.2016 is a
genuine document which was executed by Jagdish Singh in favour of
respondent for total sale consideration of Rs.13,50,000/- out of which
Rs.9,60,000/- were paid as earnest money by the vendee to the vendor and
further concluded that respondent was always ready and willing to perform
his part of the contract and consequently decreed the suit for specific
performance of agreement to sell dated 03.02.2016.
9. While the suit filed by the appellants was dismissed as they
failed to prove their defence.
10. The appeals filed by appellants against the judgment and decree
dated 08.08.2018 were also dismissed by common judgment dated
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159171
RSA-1022-2023 (O&M) [4] 2023:PHHC:159171
10.01.2023 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jind.
11. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the
appellants.
12. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
13. The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants inter alia
submits that agreement to sell Ex.P-1 was never executed by Jagdish
husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2, during his life time
and the same is not bearing the signatures of Jagdish as is evident from
testimony of DW-1 to DW-3. It is further contended that agreement to sell
Ex.P-1 is a fake and factitious document and deserves to set aside. So prayer
is made that the present appeal be allowed and the suit filed by respondent
for specific performance of contract based on Ex.P-1 should be dismissed
while the suit filed by the appellants seeking setting aside of agreement to
sell Ex.P-1 be decreed.
14. On the other hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent/caveator, while supporting the impugned judgments inter alia
contends that the execution of agreement to sell Ex.P-1 dated 03.02.2016 has
been fully proved on the record by its attesting witness namely PW-2 Ram
Mehar. It is further contended that document Ex.P-1 is a registered
document and its registration is fully proved by PW-3 registration clerk.
That stamp vendor Suresh Kumar while appearing in witness box as PW-6
proved the concerned the stamp paper purchased by Jagdish for the purpose
of execution of agreement to sell Ex.P-1. It is further submitted that at the
time of execution of the said agreement Jagdish received earnest money
worth Rs.9,60,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.13,50,000/ and the
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159171
RSA-1022-2023 (O&M) [5] 2023:PHHC:159171
target date fixed for execution of sale deed was 08.06.2016 and respondent
appeared in the office of Sub Registrar concerned along with balance sale
consideration on that date. It is further contended that there is nothing on the
record to prove that agreement to sell Ex.P-1 is a fake document. The
counsel for the respondent has further contended that the decree in question
has already been fully satisfied. That trial Court rightly decreed the suit filed
by the respondent and dismissed the suit filed by appellants. It is further
contended that there is no illegality even in the judgment dated 10.01.2023
passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jind.
15. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties.
16. From the perusal of the evidence led by the respondent in
affirmative to prove its case, the execution of agreement to sell Ex.P-1
stands fully proved. PW-2 Ram Mehar proved its execution being one of its
attesting witness. Undoubtedly, agreement to sell Ex.P-1 is a registered
document and the factum with regard to its registration has been proved by
PW-3 Naresh Kumar Registry Clerk in the office Sub Registrar concerned.
PW-5 Fateh Singh, Document Writer also deposed regarding Ex.P-1 which
was typed by him at the instance of Jagdish. The document writer also
produced register containing relevant entry Ex.PW-5/A regarding execution
of said agreement to sell. The said agreement to sell was executed on stamp
papers which were purchased from stamp vendor Suresh Kumar who
appeared in the witness box as PW-6 and he proved relevant entry of his
register Ex.PW-6/B. Even, respondent Suresh Kumar while appearing in the
witness box deposed with regard to execution of agreement to sell Ex.P-1
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159171
RSA-1022-2023 (O&M) [6] 2023:PHHC:159171
which bears his signatures. He further deposed that Jagdish died on
27.02.2016 and that respondent remained present in the office of Sub
Registrar on 08.06.2016 along with balance sale consideration for the
purpose of execution and registration of sale deed on the basis of agreement
to sell dated 03.02.2016 and he also produced copy of registered legal notice
Ex.P-2 dated 19.05.2016 issued by him to the appellants showing readiness
and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
17. To rebut the aforesaid evidence, Suresh Bala appeared in the
witness box as DW-1 and simply stated that her husband Jagdish never
disclosed about the alleged agreement to sell to her. DW-2 Surender deposed
that the suit land was owned and possessed by Jagdish who has since died.
DW-3 Subhash deposed that he took suit land on batai from Jagdish in the
year 2015 and is still cultivating the said land.
18. The plea of the appellants is that agreement to sell dated
03.02.2016 Ex.P-1 is not bearing signatures of Jagdish and that the said
document is fake and fictitious. However, in order to establish their defence
appellants failed to examine any hand writing expert in order to show that
Ex.P-1 is not bearing signatures of Jagdish. It also appears that no complaint
was ever lodged by Jagdish or appellants being his legal heirs with regard to
the alleged forgery committed by the respondent. Further, no reliable
evidence has been led by the appellants to prove that the agreement to sell
Ex.P-1 is not a genuine document.
19. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality
and infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.
No question of law, muchless any substantial question of law arises in the
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159171
RSA-1022-2023 (O&M) [7] 2023:PHHC:159171
present case. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of
facts warranting no interference by this Court.
20. Consequently, the present appeal is hereby dismissed being
devoid of merits. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
12.12.2023 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159171
7 of 7
