Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtar Singh vs Kapur Singh (Deceased) Thr Lrs And Ors on 23 October, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139263
S. No.111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
RSA No.827 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision:23.10.2024
Jagtar Singh .....Appellant
Vs.
Kapur Singh (now deceased) through LRs
and another .....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Mayur Mathur, Advocate for the appellant.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral)
This Regular Second Appeal filed by the plain!ff is against the concurrent
findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, whereby suit for possession by way of
specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.04.2005 in respect of suit
property was dismissed by the trial Court on 27.10.2016 and the said judgment has
been affirmed by the First Appellate Court on 18.09.2018.
2. It is contended by learned counsel that the Courts below have failed to
appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspec!ve and wrongly held the
agreement to sell Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P3 to be the fabricated documents.
3. However, a7er perusing the impugned judgments, this Court does not find
merit in this appeal. It will be relevant to reproduce the observa!ons made by the First
Appellate Court in para Nos.11 to 14 of the judgment, which contain the analysis of the
evidence produced before the Court below. The same reads as under:-
"This Court feels that factum of selling of 40 Kanals 13 Marlas of
land vide registered sale deed dated 30.7.2009 was never got men!oned
by the present appellant in his plaint and as such, it amounts to
concealment of facts. It was only when the above fact was disclosed in the
wri'en statement, then the present appellant filed the replica!on before
the Ld. Lower Court and had submi'ed that though the sale deed was
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139263
executed by respondent Kapur Singh (since deceased) in his favour on
30.7.2009, but the agreement to sell dated 21.4.2005 is a different one.
12. On close scru!ny of agreement to sell dated 21.4.2005 Ex.P-1, it can
be clearly manifested that the same is a fabricated document. Agreement
Ex.P-1 and receipt Ex.P-3 were typed/scribed by PW-3 Kashmir Singh
Typist at Tehsil Complex, Nawanshahr. The cross examina!on of PW-3
Kashmir Singh is very much relevant. PW-3 Kashmir Singh in his cross
examina!on has submi'ed that agreement to sell dated 21.4.2005 was
typed in one go and it was never retyped and put on the typewriter again.
Going through the contents of agreement Ex.P-1 on the record, it can be
seen with the naked eyes that there has been cu:ng and the fluid has
been used for changing figures in it. As discussed above, it is the case of
the present respondent Kapur Singh (since deceased) that in pursuance of
agreement, he had sold his land measuring 40 Kanals 13 Marlas to the
present appellant vide sale deed dated 30.7.2009 and that he never
agreed to sell regarding land measuring 48 kanals, as alleged by the
appellant vide agreement dated 21.4.2005. As per the agreement to sell
dated 21.4.2005 Ex.P-1 on the record, the a'es!ng witnesses were
Balwinder Singh son of Bishan Singh, resident of Chamkaur Sahib, District
Ropar and PW-2 Ram Lok son of Sarwan Singh, resident of village
Akalgarh,District Ropar. PW-3 Kashmir Singh has admi'ed that colour of
the names of the witnesses as of Balwinder Singh and Ram Lok are in
different ink than the other body of the agreement. Further PW-3 Kashmir
Singh, who has also typed the receipt Ex.P-3, has also admi'ed that the
same is the also situa!on with the receipt Ex.P-3 that the names of the
witnesses Balwinder Singh and Ram Lok is with different ink than the
other body of the receipt. As discussed above there is cu:ng in the body
of the agreement Ex.P-1, as figures have been clearly changed regarding
the landed property of Kapur Singh (since deceased). PW-3 Kashmir Singh
has admi'ed that there is cu:ng at point-1 to point-4 on agreement to
sell Ex.P-1, but the same was not done by him, meaning thereby that this
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139263
agreement dated 21.4.2005 Ex.P-1 has been created/fabricated by the
present appellant and none else. Even in the receipt Ex.P-3, it can be also
make out that the there is cu:ng in the amount of 38 lakhs, ₹ allegedly
received by Kapur Singh (since deceased). Rather PW-3 Kashmir Singh in
his cross examina!on has gone to the extent of sta!ng that the figure
"38" Mark-A on receipt Ex.P-3 was wri'en aCer removing the earlier
wri!ng by pu:ng the fluid and similar is his answer to figure "19" in the
receipt Ex.P-3 which is Mark-B. Rather, PW-3 Kashmir Singh has
specifically submi'ed that he do not know when these cu:ngs were
made as he has not done these cu:ngs at the !me of typing these
documents. Thus, PW-3 Kashmir Singh has made it clear that agreement
to sell dated 21.4.2005 Ex.P-1 has been fabricated by the present
appellant by taking undue advantage of Kapur Singh (since deceased) as
appellant has been pursuing the li!ga!on of Kapur Singh and even the
receipt dated 21.4.2005 is also fabricated document in view of statement
of PW-3 Kashmir Singh. 13. Further, as discussed above, respondent Kapur
Singh (since deceased) in his wri'en statement has submi'ed that he had
only agreed to sell land measuring 40 Kanals (5 Acres) to the present
appellant, aCer his li!ga!on was over with his daughter Jaswinder Kaur
and regarding this respondent Kapur Singh has submi'ed that one
agreement was executed on one plain paper. This agreement dated
21.4.2005 Mark-DA was produced before Ld. Lower Court. When
appellant Jagtar Singh stepped into the witness box and was cross
examined, this document Mark-DA dated 21.4.2005 was put to him and
present appellant Jagtar Singh had admi'ed the fact that document
Mark-DA was scribed at the !me of execu!on of the agreement and it
bears his signatures. Similarly, PW-2 Ram Lok also iden!fied his signatures
on the document Mark-DA dated 21.4.2005. Going through the contents
of this document Mark-DA dated 21.4.2005, there is also clearcut cu:ng
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139263
regarding the land allegedly to be sold by Kapur Singh (since deceased) to
the present appellant. By making the cu:ng, it stands men!oned that
respondent Kapur Singh agreed to sell land measuring 48 kanals, but as
discussed above, it is not the case of respondent Kapur Singh(since
deceased), because he had already sold land measuring 5 Acres , i.e. 40
Kanals 13 Marlas in favour of present appellant vide sale deed dated
30.7.2009 and he never agreed to sell his land measuring 48 Kanals and
even the document Mark-DA dated 21.4.2005 is also fabricated document.
14. Thus, when the evidence is appreciated thoroughly, this Court is of the
view that agreement dated 21.4.2005 Ex.P-1 and receipt Ex.P-3 dated
21.4.2005 and document Mark-DA dated 21.4.2005 are fabricated
documents, as there are cu:ngs/fluid used in replacing the figure of the
land agreed to be sold, thus, this Court feels that the Ld. Lower Court had
arrived at the correct conclusion while dismissing the suit of the present
appellant."
4. The afore-said observa!ons made by the First Appellate Court clearly
indicate that agreement to sell dated 21.04.2005 Ex.P1 and receipt of the even date
Ex.P3 besides document Mark DA of the same date were found to be fabricated
documents as there were numerous cu;ngs/ fluid used in replacing the figure of the
land agreed to be sold.
5. The aforesaid findings as recorded by the Courts below are the findings of
facts. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or
perversity in the afore-said findings. As such, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere in the well-reasoned concurrent findings of fact as recorded by the Courts
below. No substan!al ques!on of law is found to be involved.
6. Dismissed.
October 23, 2024 ( DEEPAK GUPTA )
renu JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
