Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mehnga Singh vs Gurdev Singh And Ors on 1 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044372
2024:PHHC:044372
142 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2222-1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: 01.04.2024
Mehanga Singh
....Appellant
Versus
Gurdev Singh (since deceased) through his LRs and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. M.J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the appellant
Mr.C.M.Munjal, Advocate for the respondents
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
1. This is the plaintiff's Regular Second Appeal against the
judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, which in turn has reversed
the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present
case, some relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. Sh.Gurdev Singh was owner of the land. On 04.04.1985 he
entered into an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff (Mehanga
Singh) on receipt of Rs.25,000/- as earnest money out of the total sale
consideration of Rs.44,250/-. Subsequently, another amount of
Rs.2,000/- was paid on 30.09.1987. The plaintiff, after serving notice
upon defendant no.1, on 27.01.1988, filed the suit on 16.03.1988, for
possession by way of the specific performance of the agreement to sell.
The defendant admitted the execution of the agreement to sell but
submitted that the agreement to sell was cancelled and the entire amount
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044372
RSA-2222-1992 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:044372
alongwith interest was repaid. The trial court decreed the suit, however,
the First Appellate Court held that the agreement to sell has been
cancelled by document Ex.D1 dated 13.01.1988. The correctness of such
finding by the First Appellate Court is challenged in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel representing the appellant, while referring
to the findings of the trial court, submits that the First Appellate Court
has erred in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
He submits that receipt Ex.D1 is on a small piece of paper and the thumb
impression of Sh.Mehanga Singh is from direction top to bottom
whereas in the normal way, it should be from bottom to top. He further
submits that the aforesaid piece of paper has not been scribed by a
regular scribe and it appears to have been torn from a bigger piece of
paper.
5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel representing the parties and perused Ex.D1. The
execution of the receipt Ex.D1 has been proved by examining DW3
Sukhdev Singh scribe, DW2 Ujjagar Singh marginal witness and DW5
Sh.V.B.Bhatnagar handwriting and finger print expert. It has come on
record that the plaintiff appended his thumb impression. It was for him
to explain as to how and in what circumstances, he appended his thumb
impression. Even if the thumb impression is with direction from top to
bottom that would not make any difference because the plaintiff is
required to explain why he appended the thumb impression.
6. The trial court has tried to pick holes in document Ex.D1
without realizing that the aforesaid receipt was executed in the village
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044372
RSA-2222-1992 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:044372
between two villagers. In the receipt, it has ben recited that the plaintiff
admits receipt of Rs.33,000/- and declared that the agreement to sell
dated 04.04.1985 will not be enforceable. It has also come on record
that the land was previously mortgaged with children of Sh.Mehnga
Singh. Moreover, the suit was filed nearly three years after the
agreement to sell was entered into.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court does not find
it appropriate to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the First
Appellate Court.
8. Hence, dismissed.
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
01.04.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
