Bakhshish Singh And Ors vs Gurmeet Kaur And Anr]
2024 Latest Caselaw 5122 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bakhshish Singh And Ors vs Gurmeet Kaur And Anr] on 6 March, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032057




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH
117                                                        2024:PHHC:032057

                                                 RSA-3346-2017 (O&M)
                                                 Date of decision: 06.03.2024

BAKHSHISH SINGH AND ORS                                    ..Appellants
                                   Versus
GURMEET KAUR AND ANR                                       ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:     Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate
             for the appellants.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

1. This is plaintiffs regular second appeal against the concurrent

judgments of the Courts below. His suit for possession by way of specific

performance of the agreement to sell has been dismissed by both the Courts

below. The Court has found that the execution of the agreement to sell is

doubtful on account of the following reasons:-

i. The defendant Smt. Gurmeet Kaur is an illiterate lady,

who used to thumb mark the documents. But the perusal

of the agreement to sell reveals that Smt. Gurmeet Kaur

had allegedly put her signatures.

ii. Sh. Kabal Singh has signed the agreement to sell as

marginal witness claiming to be Lambardar, however,

during cross-examination, he has admitted that he is not

Lambardar of village Gatta Badshah, which has its own

Panchayats and Lambardars.

iii. The sale deed was to be executed after a long delay of

two years from the date of execution of the agreement to

sell, which makes the execution of the agreement

doubtful.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032057

2024:PHHC:032057 RSA-3346-2017 (O&M) -2-

iv. The evidence of scribe Sh. Karnail Singh is doubtful

because a large number of criminal cases are pending

against him and the scribe has failed to produce record of

relevant entry of the agreement to sell in his note-book.

2. The learned counsel representing the appellants though made

sincere attempt, however, failed to draw the attention of the Court to any

substantive error in reading of the evidence. He also failed to draw the

attention of the Court to misreading or non-reading of evidence.

3. In regular second appeal, the scope of interference is extremely

limited.

4. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.

5. Dismissed accordingly.

6. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

March 06th, 2024                                      (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay                                                         JUDGE

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

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032057

2 of 2