Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdev Singh vs Davinder Singh And Others on 3 April, 2024
Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Bench: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046876
115 2024:PHHC:046876
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4778 of 2019
Date of Decision: 03.04.2024
Gurdev Singh
...Appellant
Versus
Davinder Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present:- Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate
for the appellant.
*****
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree handed down
by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Zira (for short 'the
trial Court') on 02.01.2017, whereby the Civil Suit filed by the appellant-
plaintiff (here-in-after to be referred as 'the plaintiff') for seeking a decree
for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.06.2009 qua the
suit land, by the respondents-defendants (here-in-after to be referred as 'the
defendants') and for declaration to the effect that the sale-deed, allegedly
executed by defendant No.1 on 24.05.2012 in favour of defendants No.
2 to 4 in respect of the said land was illegal, null and void, with further
prayer to restrain defendants No.2 to 4 from dispossessing him (plaintiff)
from this land and from alienating it in any manner or in the alternative, a
decree for recovery of Rs.60,000/- as compensation/damages along-with
interest thereon, has been dismissed as well as by the judgment and decree
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046876
RSA No.4778 of 2019 -2- 2024:PHHC:046876
as passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur (for short 'the
Lower Appellate Court') on 15.07.2019, dismissing the appeal moved by
him (plaintiff) to assail the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2017, he has
chosen to prefer the instant appeal to lay challenge to the same.
2. As per the brief factual-matrix, as emanating from the perusal
of the file and culminating in the filing of the present appeal, the plaintiff
filed the afore-referred Civil Suit, while averring that defendant No.1 had
entered into an agreement with him on 11.06.2009, to sell the suit land in
his favour for the consideration of Rs.60,000/- and had received a sum of
Rs.45,000/- from him (plaintiff) as earnest money and they had agreed for
the execution and registration of the sale-deed on or before 08.06.2012. He
had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the above-said
contract/agreement to sell and had gone to the office of the Registering
Authority on the stipulated date, along-with the balance sale consideration
and the money for meeting out the other necessary expenses for the afore-
mentioned purpose but defendant No.1 did not turn up there. Later-on, he
obtained the copy of 'Jamabandi' and came to know that defendant No.1
had already transferred the suit land in favour of defendants No.2 to 4.
Defendant No.1 filed his written-statement and defendants No.2 to 4 also
filed their joint written-statement and contested the claim of the plaintiff
therein, on various grounds. Then, the plaintiff filed the Replication and the
parties were put to the trial by framing the issues and after appreciating and
evaluating the evidence as adduced by them on the record and hearing their
respective counsel, the trial Court dismissed the above-said Civil Suit and
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046876
RSA No.4778 of 2019 -3- 2024:PHHC:046876
the appeal, moved by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed
by the trial Court, has also ended in its dismissal, as already discussed in
the opening para of this judgment.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff in the
instant appeal, at the preliminary stage and have also gone through the file
carefully.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the plaintiff had
led cogent and sufficient evidence on the record to prove the factum of the
execution of the afore-referred agreement by defendant No.1 to sell the suit
land in his favour and he (plaintiff) had always remained ready and willing
to pay the balance sale consideration and to bear the necessary expenses for
the purpose of execution and registration of the sale-deed in pursuance of
the above-said agreement but the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court
have erroneously declined to grant the relief, as prayed for by the plaintiff
in the Suit and in these circumstances, it becomes quite explicit that the
impugned judgments and decrees, are not legally sustainable and hence, the
same deserve to be set-aside.
5. However, the afore-raised contentions are bereft of any merit
because the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court have categorically
observed in their respective judgments that the plaintiff failed to produce
the original agreement in question, on the record and though, he (plaintiff)
had placed the copy of a DDR on the file to show that the same had been
lost but he had not pleaded this fact in the plaint and moreover, he had also
not examined the Scribe of the above-alleged agreement as the witness and
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046876
RSA No.4778 of 2019 -4- 2024:PHHC:046876
that DW-2 Paras Kumar, the Stamp-Vendor, had categorically deposed that
the stamp-paper, on which the agreement in dispute was claimed to have
been scribed, had never been sold by him and both the Courts have, further,
concurrently held that the afore-discussed facts cast a shadow of doubt on
the genuineness of the above-referred agreement. The plaintiff has not been
able to come forward with any candid and cogent ground/reason to show as
to how the afore-mentioned findings, as returned by the Courts below, are
factually or illegally incorrect or are perverse in any manner.
7. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the
impugned judgments and decrees, as passed by both the Courts below, do
not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, irregularity or perversity so as to call
for any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the same are, hereby, upheld
and the appeal in hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed.
03.04.2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
pooja JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
4 of 4
