In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Vs. Darshan Singh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1132635
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-06-2014
AppellantIn the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
RespondentDarshan Singh
Excerpt:
rs.no.1213 of 2014 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh ***** rs.no.1213 of 2014 (o&m) date of decision: 06.03.2014 ***** parminder kaur alias pammi . . appellant versus darshan singh . . respondent ***** coram:- hon’ble mr.justice rakesh kumar jain ***** present: - mr.l.s.sidhu, advocate, for for the appellant. mr.s.c.chhabra, advocate, for the caveator/respondent. ***** rakesh kumar jain, j. cm no.2828-c-2014 for the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 302 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned. cm stands disposed of. cm no.2829-c-2014 application is allowed as prayed for. rs.no.1213 of 2014 (o&m) the defendant is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell has been decreed. the case set up by the plaintiff is that the defendant entered into agreement to sell with him on 19.7.1999 of the land in dispute @ `1,30,000/- per acre while accepting an advance of rs.no.1213 of 2014 -2- `1,50,000/-. the sale deed was to be executed upto 31.12.1999. the plaintiff was ready and willing for execution of the sale deed and hence, he reached the office of sub registrar, mansa along with remaining sale consideration but the defendant did not come present. the plaintiff got his presence marked by moving an application before the sub-registrar. on the same day, at about 6:00 pm, the plaintiff organized a panchayat and on the asking of the respectable of the village, the defendant agreed to get the sale deed registered upto 5.1.2000 and an endorsement was also made on the back of the agreement. on 5.1.2000, there was a holiday because of the birthday of shri guru gobind singh ji, and the plaintiff remained present in the office of sub-registrar, mansa on 6.1.2000 awaiting the arrival of the defendant, who again did not come. the plaintiff got his presence marked by way of an application moved to sub-registrar, mansa. thereafter on 2.5.2000, the defendant on the asking of the respectables of the village received remaining amount of sale consideration of `45,000/- and purchased stamp papers amounting to `11,700/- from the treasury. the plaintiff got drafted the sale deed in favour of gurbakhshish singh, iqbal singh and darshan singh to the extent of 1/3 share; avtar singh and navdeep singh to the extent of 1/3 share and gurpreet singh to the extent of 1/3 share, and signed the draft sale deed which was also witnessed. she also put her signatures in the register of deed writer but the defendant again refused to get it registered as per the agreement dated 19.7.1999. hence, the suit was filed in which an alternative prayer was made that if the plaintiff is not found entitled for rs.no.1213 of 2014 -3- specific performance then he may be held entitled to recover `2,06,700/- i.e.`1,95,000/- already paid to the defendant and `11,700/- spent for purchasing stamp papers.along with interest @ 2% per month from the date of payment till its realization. the defendant contested the suit on the ground that the agreement dated 19.7.1999, writing dated 31.12.1999 and alleged sale deed dated 02.05.2000 are fake and illegal documents, without consideration and have been manipulated by the plaintiff. she denied to have entered into any agreement or received any amount from the plaintiff and alleged that the writings were the result of fraud and misrepresentation. it is alleged that amarjit singh, husband of the defendant is a drunkard person and the plaintiff is taking undue advantage of his drinking habits. on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: - “1. whether the agreement dated 19.7.1999, executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff is legal and valid agreement?. opp2 whether plaintiff is entitled to relief for specific performance?. opp3 whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery `2,06,700/- as an alternative relief?. opp rs.no.1213 of 2014 -4- 4. whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?. opd5 whether suit of plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee?. opd6 relief.”. plaintiff examined bhupinder singh as pw1, dalip singh as pw2, ankush singla as pw3, dr. atul k. singla, handwriting and fingerprints expert, forensic documents examiner as pw4, kishan singh, stamp vendor as pw5, ranvir inder singh as pw6, palwinder singh as pw7, and examined himself as pw8 and placed on record his affidavit ex.pw8/a. he proved on record the agreement in question ex.p1; writing dated 31.12.1999 ex.p12; applications dated 31.12.1999, 4.1.2000, 6.1.2000 (exs. p16 to p18 respectively) and original sale deed and duplicate copy of sale deed ex.p14 and ex.p15. armarjit singh was given up by the plaintiff being won over by the defendant being her husband and closed his evidence after tendering into evidence jamabandi for the year 1994-95 (ex.p10).defendant examined herself as dw1 and placed on the file her affidavit (ex.dw1/a) whereby she reiterated her version of written statement and closed her evidence after tendering into evidence copy of khasr.girdawari (ex.da.) both the courts below, after appreciation of evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the defendant was granted four months time to get the sale deed dated 2.5.2000 registered failing which the plaintiff was held entitled to get it registered by rs.no.1213 of 2014 -5- taking recours.of law after obtaining the original sale deed dated 2.5.2000 from the court file as per law and the suit of the plaintiff for alternative relief was dismissed being infructuous. learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the agreement has been manipulated and is an act of fraud but he has failed to highlight any act of fraud on the part of the plaintiff because he has admitted that the plaintiff’s signatures are there on the agreement. once, the signatures have been proved, it is for the defendant, who denies the agreement, to prove by leading cogent evidence that the said agreement has been prepared on the blank papers signed by the defendant. her entire case is that her husband is a drunkard and the plaintiff might have manipulated the agreement. it is no-where the case of the defendant that her husband has been acting as a power of attorney on her behalf and has signed the agreement to sell rather the defendant herself had signed the agreement to sell in which the date for execution was even extended after taking the remaining sale consideration on which also the signatures of the defendant has been appended. in the absence of any question of law much less substantial it would not be possible for this court to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the both the courts below on appreciation of evidence led by both the parties. hence, the present appeal is found to be denuded any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (rakesh kumar jain) 06.03.2014 judge vivek pahwa vivek 2014.03.11 13:34 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

Rs.No.1213 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** Rs.No.1213 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.03.2014 ***** Parminder Kaur alias Pammi .

.

Appellant versus Darshan Singh .

.

Respondent ***** CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: - Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for for the Appellant.

Mr.S.C.Chhabra, Advocate, for the caveator/respondent.

***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

CM No.2828-C-2014 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 302 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

CM No.2829-C-2014 Application is allowed as prayed for.

Rs.No.1213 of 2014 (O&M) The defendant is in Second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell has been decreed.

The case set up by the plaintiff is that the defendant entered into agreement to sell with him on 19.7.1999 of the land in dispute @ `1,30,000/- per acre while accepting an advance of Rs.No.1213 of 2014 -2- `1,50,000/-.

The sale deed was to be executed upto 31.12.1999.

The plaintiff was ready and willing for execution of the sale deed and hence, he reached the office of Sub Registrar, Mansa along with remaining sale consideration but the defendant did not come present.

The Plaintiff got his presence marked by moving an application before the Sub-Registrar.

On the same day, at about 6:00 PM, the plaintiff organized a Panchayat and on the asking of the respectable of the village, the defendant agreed to get the sale deed registered upto 5.1.2000 and an endorsement was also made on the back of the agreement.

On 5.1.2000, there was a holiday because of the birthday of Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji, and the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Mansa on 6.1.2000 awaiting the arrival of the defendant, who again did not come.

The plaintiff got his presence marked by way of an application moved to Sub-Registrar, Mansa.

Thereafter on 2.5.2000, the defendant on the asking of the respectables of the village received remaining amount of sale consideration of `45,000/- and purchased stamp papers amounting to `11,700/- from the Treasury.

The plaintiff got drafted the sale deed in favour of Gurbakhshish Singh, Iqbal Singh and Darshan Singh to the extent of 1/3 share; Avtar Singh and Navdeep Singh to the extent of 1/3 share and Gurpreet Singh to the extent of 1/3 share, and signed the draft sale deed which was also witnessed.

She also put her signatures in the register of Deed Writer but the defendant again refused to get it registered as per the agreement dated 19.7.1999.

Hence, the suit was filed in which an alternative prayer was made that if the plaintiff is not found entitled for Rs.No.1213 of 2014 -3- specific performance then he may be held entitled to recover `2,06,700/- i.e.`1,95,000/- already paid to the defendant and `11,700/- spent for purchasing stamp papeRs.along with interest @ 2% per month from the date of payment till its realization.

The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the agreement dated 19.7.1999, writing dated 31.12.1999 and alleged sale deed dated 02.05.2000 are fake and illegal documents, without consideration and have been manipulated by the plaintiff.

She denied to have entered into any agreement or received any amount from the plaintiff and alleged that the writings were the result of fraud and misrepresentation.

It is alleged that Amarjit Singh, husband of the defendant is a drunkard person and the plaintiff is taking undue advantage of his drinking habits.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: - “1.

Whether the agreement dated 19.7.1999, executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff is legal and valid agreement?.

OPP2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief for specific performance?.

OPP3 Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery `2,06,700/- as an alternative relief?.

OPP Rs.No.1213 of 2014 -4- 4.

Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?.

OPD5 Whether suit of plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee?.

OPD6 Relief.”

.

Plaintiff examined Bhupinder Singh as PW1, Dalip Singh as PW2, Ankush Singla as PW3, Dr.

Atul K.

Singla, Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert, Forensic Documents Examiner as PW4, Kishan Singh, Stamp Vendor as PW5, Ranvir Inder Singh as PW6, Palwinder Singh as PW7, and examined himself as PW8 and placed on record his affidavit Ex.PW8/A.

He proved on record the agreement in question Ex.P1; writing dated 31.12.1999 Ex.P12; applications dated 31.12.1999, 4.1.2000, 6.1.2000 (Exs.

P16 to P18 respectively) and original sale deed and duplicate copy of sale deed Ex.P14 and Ex.P15.

Armarjit Singh was given up by the plaintiff being won over by the defendant being her husband and closed his evidence after tendering into evidence jamabandi for the year 1994-95 (Ex.P10).Defendant examined herself as DW1 and placed on the file her affidavit (Ex.DW1/A) whereby she reiterated her version of written statement and closed her evidence after tendering into evidence copy of khaSr.girdawari (Ex.DA.) Both the Courts below, after appreciation of evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the defendant was granted four months time to get the sale deed dated 2.5.2000 registered failing which the plaintiff was held entitled to get it registered by Rs.No.1213 of 2014 -5- taking recouRs.of law after obtaining the original sale deed dated 2.5.2000 from the Court file as per law and the suit of the plaintiff for alternative relief was dismissed being infructuous.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the agreement has been manipulated and is an act of fraud but he has failed to highlight any act of fraud on the part of the plaintiff because he has admitted that the plaintiff’s signatures are there on the agreement.

Once, the signatures have been proved, it is for the defendant, who denies the agreement, to prove by leading cogent evidence that the said agreement has been prepared on the blank papers signed by the defendant.

Her entire case is that her husband is a drunkard and the plaintiff might have manipulated the agreement.

It is no-where the case of the defendant that her husband has been acting as a power of attorney on her behalf and has signed the agreement to sell rather the defendant herself had signed the agreement to sell in which the date for execution was even extended after taking the remaining sale consideration on which also the signatures of the defendant has been appended.

In the absence of any question of law much less substantial it would not be possible for this Court to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence led by both the parties.

Hence, the present appeal is found to be denuded any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 06.03.2014 JUDGE Vivek Pahwa Vivek 2014.03.11 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document