IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
RSA 3234 of 2007
DATE OF DECISION : JULY 14, 2008
JAGJIT SINGH ....... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
HARJIT SINGH .... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, for the appellant.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
This is defendant’s Regular Second Appeal against the
judgment of affirmance.
The case set up by the plaintiff-respondent was that the
defendant-appellant had executed an agreement to sell his land on
19.4.2001. On the extended date of execution of the sale deed, however, he
did not turn up and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to seek specific
performance of the agreement.
Having considered the entire evidence, the following has been
held by the trial Court in para-20 of its judgment:
RSA 3234 of 2007 2
“20. After going through the oral and documentary evidence
led by the parties, with a juristic mind, the court finds on
substance neither of the contentions advanced by counsel for
the defendant and is of the opinion that suit of the plaintiff
must succeed. So far as the case of the plaintiff is concerned,
the same is supported by his deposition, duly supported and
corroborated by two other independent PWs i.e. Om Parkash
marginal witness PW-1 and Makhan Singh, another marginal
witness PW-3. Defendant counsel availed an opportunity to
cross-examine these PWs, but could not point anything from
the cross-examination of either of the PWs, which could
show any reason to give a false statement or to disbelieve
their version. Moreover, their depositions are supported by
the statement of Expert Witness i.e. PW-4, who found that the
questioned signatures over the agreement Exh.P-1 and the
extensions of date for execution of sale deed are similar and
identical with the standard signatures of defendant, appearing
on the power of attorney, written statement and on the
acknowledgment. He gave some sound reasoning to base his
opinion. Moreover, during cross-examination, defendant
admitted his signature over the agreement itself. But he
added that same were obtained, when the same was blank.
However, his deposition in this regard remained un-
corroborated and is rather falsified by two independent PWs
i.e. both the marginal witnesses PW-1 & PW-3. The
defendant had best opportunity to examine his son Samarjit
Singh, another witness of this agreement and both the
extensions Exh.P-1, Exh.P-1/1 and Exh.P-1/2 respectively,
but he failed to examine even his son to support his version.
Therefore, it belies his plea that he never executed that
agreement or the extensions and his signatures were obtained
on blank papers.”
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that
the first appellate Court has not considered the evidence, which was
required to be done.
I have considered the impugned judgments. Learned counsel
for the appellant has not been able to dispute the fact that the two
witnesses to the agreement have deposed against the appellant-defendant.
The son of the appellant, who was a witness to the execution of the
agreement, was not even produced. The findings of fact cannot be faulted
with in view of the discussion in para-20, facts recorded wherein have not
RSA 3234 of 2007 3
been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. An attempt has
been made to have the evidence re-appreciated so as to arrive at a
different conclusion in this Regular Second Appeal. The facts and
circumstances of the case, however, do not call for any interference in
view of the overwhelming evidence available on the record against the
appellant-defendant. Even the signatures of the appellant-defendant
match with those on the agreement and the extensions of dates for the
execution of sale deed.
No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
The appeal is dismissed in limine.
July 14, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE