Present: Mr. Munish Mittal Advocate Vs. Ashok Kumar ...Appellant - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1128290
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-10-2014
AppellantPresent: Mr. Munish Mittal Advocate
RespondentAshok Kumar ...Appellant
Excerpt:
vinod kumar 2014.02.21 11:12 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh rs.no.4873 of 2011 (o&m) [1].***** in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh rs.no.4873 of 2011 (o&m) date of decision:10.02.2014 ashok kumar ...appellant versus smt. dayawanti and others ...respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice rakesh kumar jain present: mr.munish mittal, advocate, for the appellant. ***** rakesh kumar jain, j. the plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.10.1992, allegedly executed by inder sain, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. it is alleged that the demised premises (shop) was agreed to be sold for `50,000/-. the plaintiff had paid `40,000/- as earnest money but one om parkash @ bechu ram was in possession of the shop on the monthly rent of `500/-. it was alleged that the vendor inder sain was to file a suit for ejectment and after getting the ejectment decree, had to hand over the vacant possession of the shop at the time of execution of the sale deed after receiving balance sale consideration of `10,000/-. it is alleged that the vendor inder sain died on 30.01.1993. the plaintiff had been requesting the sons of the vendor to file ejectment application against om parkash which was filed in the year 1998, he was evicted from the demised vinod kumar 2014.02.21 11:12 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh rs.no.4873 of 2011 (o&m) [2].***** premises on 01.03.2001 and the firs.appeal was dismissed on 05.08.2001. after finalization of ejectment proceedings, the plaintiff requested the defendants to hand over vacant possession, execute and register the sale deed in his favour as he came to know that the possession has been taken from om parkash on 01.03.2001. he served a legal notice upon the defendants to perform their part of the contract as he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in terms of the agreement to sell and appeared before the sub registrar where he got his presence marked but the defendants did not turn up. the written statement was filed by defendants no.1 and 2 jointly in which it was alleged that the suit is hopelessly time barred because the agreement took place on 15.10.1992 and the suit has been filed on 18.02.2003, after expiry of 11 years.they denied the execution of the agreement by their father and termed it to be a forged document. on the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed and both the parties led their evidence. the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on 03.02.2010 and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the appellate court on 16.03.2011. the appellate court has given cogent reasons while disbelieving the story propounded by the plaintiff:- learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that signatures on the agreement to sell (ex.p1) of inder sain has tallied with specimen signatures and the report of the document expert ex.pw3 proves that the agreement was executed by inder sain but vinod kumar 2014.02.21 11:12 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh rs.no.4873 of 2011 (o&m) [3].***** at the same time it is not denied that the expert produced by the defendants has found that the signatures have been obtained by tracing. question of law that has been framed by counsel for the appellant is a pure question of fact as to whether the agreement to sell dated 15.10.1992 is genuine or not which has been answered by both the courts below in negative against the plaintiff and if that question is decided against the plaintiff, the second question framed in the grounds of appeal as to whether the appellant is entitled to the shop in dispute when he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract would not arise at all. thus, looking from any angle, there is hardly any reason for this court to take a view different from the view taken by both the courts below while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff as no question of law much-less substantial is found to have been involved in this appeal. dismissed. february 10, 2014 (rakesh kumar jain) vinod* judge
Judgment:

vinod kumar 2014.02.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.4873 of 2011 (O&M) [1].***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.4873 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:10.02.2014 Ashok Kumar ...Appellant Versus Smt.

Dayawanti and others ...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present: Mr.Munish Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant.

***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

The plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.10.1992, allegedly executed by Inder Sain, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants.

It is alleged that the demised premises (shop) was agreed to be sold for `50,000/-.

The plaintiff had paid `40,000/- as earnest money but one Om Parkash @ Bechu Ram was in possession of the shop on the monthly rent of `500/-.

It was alleged that the vendor Inder Sain was to file a suit for ejectment and after getting the ejectment decree, had to hand over the vacant possession of the shop at the time of execution of the sale deed after receiving balance sale consideration of `10,000/-.

It is alleged that the vendor Inder Sain died on 30.01.1993.

The plaintiff had been requesting the sons of the vendor to file ejectment application against Om Parkash which was filed in the year 1998, he was evicted from the demised vinod kumar 2014.02.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.4873 of 2011 (O&M) [2].***** premises on 01.03.2001 and the fiRs.appeal was dismissed on 05.08.2001.

After finalization of ejectment proceedings, the plaintiff requested the defendants to hand over vacant possession, execute and register the sale deed in his favour as he came to know that the possession has been taken from Om Parkash on 01.03.2001.

He served a legal notice upon the defendants to perform their part of the contract as he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in terms of the agreement to sell and appeared before the Sub Registrar where he got his presence marked but the defendants did not turn up.

The written statement was filed by defendants no.1 and 2 jointly in which it was alleged that the suit is hopelessly time barred because the agreement took place on 15.10.1992 and the suit has been filed on 18.02.2003, after expiry of 11 yeaRs.They denied the execution of the agreement by their father and termed it to be a forged document.

On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed and both the parties led their evidence.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on 03.02.2010 and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the Appellate Court on 16.03.2011.

The Appellate Court has given cogent reasons while disbelieving the story propounded by the plaintiff:- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that signatures on the agreement to sell (Ex.P1) of Inder Sain has tallied with specimen signatures and the report of the document expert Ex.PW3 proves that the agreement was executed by Inder Sain but vinod kumar 2014.02.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.4873 of 2011 (O&M) [3].***** at the same time it is not denied that the expert produced by the defendants has found that the signatures have been obtained by tracing.

Question of law that has been framed by counsel for the appellant is a pure question of fact as to whether the agreement to sell dated 15.10.1992 is genuine or not which has been answered by both the Courts below in negative against the plaintiff and if that question is decided against the plaintiff, the second question framed in the grounds of appeal as to whether the appellant is entitled to the shop in dispute when he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract would not arise at all.

Thus, looking from any angle, there is hardly any reason for this Court to take a view different from the view taken by both the Courts below while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff as no question of law much-less substantial is found to have been involved in this appeal.

Dismissed.

February 10, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE