Single judge (Oral) dismissed a regular second appeal against lower court decrees ordering specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The court held the appellant failed to rebut evidence of execution and payment of earnest money under Section 101 of IPC.
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.
RSA No.624 of 2016 (O&M)
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.624 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:29.11.2018
Inderjit Singh
... Appellant
Vs.
Maninder Bir Singh and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Parminder Pal Singh Thethi, Advocate for the caveator/respondent(s).
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
The present Regular Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of facts and law, whereby, suit of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 claiming specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 05.05.2003 in respect of suit land agreed to be sold at the rate of 2,00,000/- per acre against the receipt of earnest money of 2,00,000/- has been decreed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.
Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant no.1 submitted that though the appellant-defendant no.1 was proceeded against ex parte but later on, allowed to join the proceedings and filed the written statement. The stand taken in the written statement was that the agreement to sell was forged and fabricated document at the instance of one Raghbir Singh. The trial Court has not
SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.03 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.624 of 2016 (O&M) {2}
taken into consideration the testimony of marginal witnesses Rajbalbir Singh-PW3 and Scribe, Atma Singh, PW4 and Harmohinder Singh, PW1, in correct perspective, therefore, the discretionary relief ought not to have been granted.
I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable, for, the attesting witnesses have not only proved the execution of the agreement to sell but also payment of earnest money. If at all, the agreement to sell was forged and fabricated document, nothing prevented the appellant-defendant no.1 to lead evidence to belie the testimony of attesting witnesses. In the absence of the same, the Courts below had no other option but to grant the discretionary relief as the plaintiff has been able to discharge the onus as per the provisions of Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act.
As an upshot of my findings, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the judgments and decrees under challenge which are based upon the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, much less no substantial question of law arises for adjudication of the present appeal.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
November 29, 2018 savita
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.03 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the findings of the lower courts regarding specific performance of the agreement and payment of earnest money were legally sustainable.
Whether substantial question of law arises on the appreciation of evidence and documentary proof in the case.
Whether the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding fabrication of the agreement to sell.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Inderjit Singh
Maninder Bir Singh
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
