Dismissed

Mehar Chand v. Gian Chand

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Sept 2013RSA/3132/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the second appeal. The court upheld the lower courts' concurrent findings that the agreement to sell was duly executed, fraudulent pleas were unproven, and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness were established, thus refusing to interfere with the decree for specific performance.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed; the earlier decree for specific performance was upheld.

Mehar Chand Vs Gian Chand — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar 2013.11.08 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

#1#

¶3

RSA No.3132 of 2012 (O&M)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

¶5

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶6

RSA No.3132 of 2012 (O&M)

¶7

Date of Decision: 24.9.2013

Mehar Chand

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Gian Chand

....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶14

Present: Mr. M.S. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.

¶15

JASWANT SINGH, J

¶16

Defendant-appellant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession by way of specific performance has been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 1.9.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Tohana and the findings affirmed vide judgment and decree dated 18.5.2012 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Fatehabad.

¶17

Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession of land measuring 8 kanals as described in the head note of the plaint by way of specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 5.1.2004 or in the alternative, to direct the appellant to pay

¶18

RSA No.3132 of 2012 (O&M) #2#

¶19

Rs.1,00,000/- i.e double the earnest money along with interest at the rate of 18%. The defendant-appellant denied the execution of abovesaid agreement dated 5.8.2004 and further submitted that the plaintiff-respondent was a Commission Agent in Tohana mandi, to whom he used to sell his agricultural produce and thus, the plaintiff used to obtain thumb impression of the defendant-appellant on blank papers on the pretext of security. The agreement was denied as a forged and fabricated document being prepared in connivance of Deed Writter and attesting witnesses by using the blank signed papers.

¶20

Both the courts below have concurrently found that the execution of agreement is duly proved by the plaintiff along with PW3Harish Kumar/Deed Writer and attesting witness-Rameshwar Dass and there is no effective cross examination on behalf of the defendantappellant regarding the execution of agreement dated 5.1.2004 (Ex.P.2).

¶21

It is pertinent to mention here that neither the signatures of the defendant-appellant is disputed nor the earnest money of Rs.50000/- has been denied. So far as the plea of fraud and fabrication is concerned, it was incumbent upon the defendant-appellant to prove the allegations by leading cogent evidence but he has failed to do so.

¶22

So far as the plea of readiness and willingness is concerned, that has been duly proved by the plaintiff as he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract along with the balance consideration and as such, both the learned courts below have rightly exercised their jurisdiction while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-

¶23

RSA No.3132 of 2012 (O&M) #3#

¶24

respondent for possession by way of specific performance. Even before this Court also, the same points are being agitated but there is no material available on record to differ with the reasoning adopted by both the courts below as the only point, which is sought to be argued, is fabrication of the agreement to sell dated 5.1.2004 (Ex.P.2) as discussed above.

¶25

No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal to be adjudicated under Section 100 CPC.

¶26

Dismissed. September 24,2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE

Mehar Chand v. Gian Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehar Chand v. Gian Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Grover Vs Santosh Kumari

Malkiat Kaur Vs Kuldeep Kaur

Inder Vs Karan Singh & Ors.

Shabeg Singh and Anr. Vs Gulshan Rani

Jai Narain Vs Sheodutt Rai

Balwant Singh and Others Vs Baljinder Kaur and Another