Defendant's second appeal was dismissed where courts found the appellant denied execution and alleged fraud without proving it; husband admitted thumb-marking, and no expert witness testimony was required.
Judgments and decrees of Courts below upholding specific performance were affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
���������������������������������������� ��������������
������������������������ � Date of decision: 7th May, 2014
Raj Bala
� Appellant
Versus
Sher Singh and another
� Respondents
�����!�����"�#����������������$����$����������
Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
��$����$���������%��������#
This is defendant’s second appeal challenging judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff3 respondents for specific performance of the agreement to sell in question has been decreed against her.
Suffice it to say that in the written statement the appellant has denied execution of the agreement to sell in question and has taken a plea that a fraud has been played upon her by using her thumb impressions which her husband might have obtained on some blank papers.
Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding on the basis of evidence on record that due execution of the
Singh Rattan Pal 2014.05.12 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
2
�������������������������
agreement to sell in question stands proved from the evidence of witnesses to the agreement to sell in question. The Courts below have further recorded a finding that the appellant has failed to prove the fraud, as alleged by her.
Much stress has been laid before this Court on the fact that the plaintiff3respondents have not proved signatures of the appellant on the agreement to sell in question by calling an expert witness. According to learned counsel for the appellant, once she had denied her signatures, it was incumbent upon the respondents to prove the same by calling an expert witness. However, it may be noticed at this stage that Gulab Singh, who is husband of the appellant, had appeared in the Court as PW38 and had admitted that the appellant has thumb marked the documents in question in his presence. Neither it is the pleaded case of the appellant that her husband has colluded with the plaintiff3respondents in any manner nor there is any evidence to show such collusiveness. In view of the aforesaid facts, which could not be disputed before this Court, no exception can be taken to the findings recorded by the courts below against the appellant.
Thus, this Court is of the view that no substantial question
of law arises at all in this appeal.
Dismissed.
���$����$��������� � ������
�&'�(%����)� ���
Singh Rattan Pal 2014.05.12 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
Raj Bala
Sher Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
