Judgment:
Rs.No.4415 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** Rs.No.4415 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.03.2014 ***** Krishan Kumar .
.Appellant Versus Surender Singh @ Surender Kumar .
.
Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant.
***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The defendant entered into an agreement to sell 9 kanal of land being 180/7485 share out of the total land measuring 374 kanal 5 marla in revenue estate of village Rampura to the plaintiff on 1.5.2001 for a consideration of `1,63,000/- out of which he received `60,000/- as advance.
The defendant delivered possession of land comprised in Killa No.42/17 and fixed target date for execution and registration of the sale deed as 1.6.2001 which was later on extended with the mutual consent on 28.5.2001 till 1.6.2002 when the defendant received another sum of `25,000/- and the remaining `35,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of Rs.No.4415 of 2013 -2- execution and registration of the sale deed.
According to the plaintiff, he requested the defendant to get the sale deed executed and registered and even served a legal notice on 20.5.2002 to remain present on 1.6.2002 before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Narnaul but the defendant did not turn up.
At last, the plaintiff got his presence marked on an affidavit dated 1.6.2002.
However, in the evening of 1.6.2002, he approached the defendant and asked him to get the sale deed executed on 3.6.2002 and on that date, he remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Narnaul along with balance sale consideration for registration of sale deed and got his presence marked but the defendant did not come, which led to the filing of the suit.
In the written statement, the defendant denied the execution of the agreement, receipt of the earnest money and delivery of possession.
Rather, he alleged that the agreement is forged result of fraud and misrepresentation and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
The issues were framed and the plaintiff led his evidence but the defendant did not lead any evidence.
On the basis of the evidence led by the plaintiff, the Courts below decreed the suit.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although defendant has not led any evidence inasmuch as he himself also did not appear in the witness box to deny Rs.No.4415 of 2013 -3- the execution of the agreement, still the plaintiff has to prove his case on the basis of his evidence.
It is submitted that the plaintiff has relied upon statement of the witnesses of the agreement out of whom one of the witness namely, Bhola Ram (PW1) has been declared hostile.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and examining the available record, I have found that the agreement has been proved by PW2 Rajender Singh, who is also the attesting witness.
He withstood the cross-examination.
It is stated by him that defendant had taken money from the plaintiff in his presence.
He testified that agreement to sell (Ex.P1) is duly signed by him which was read over to the defendant, who had thumb-marked the same after accepting it to be correct.
Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any significant error in the judgment and decree of both the Courts below which could bring his case within the definition of perversity for attracting provisions of Section 100 of the CPC.
Moreover, in the absence of any evidence led by the defendant, who did not even appear in the witness box to deny the execution of the agreement and receipt of the advance, the judgment and decree of the Courts below cannot be faulted.
Rs.No.4415 of 2013 -4- In view of the aforesaid, the judgment and decree of both the Courts are below found to be unblemished and thus the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 25.03.2014 JUDGE Vivek Pahwa Vivek 2014.04.01 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document