This single-judge oral order dismisses a second appeal. The appellant failed in a suit for specific performance due to defendant opposition and witness evidence showing signatures were obtained on blank papers, leading the lower court to find no ground for interference.
The second appeal is dismissed with no ground for interference established.
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.
-1-
RSA No.928 of 2016 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.928 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.09.01.2019
Manohar Lal
...Appellant
Vs
Gurnam Singh ...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.2535-C of 2016
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 236 days in re-filing of the appeal is condoned.
Application is allowed.
RSA No.928 of 2016
The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in claiming specific performance of agreement to sell dated 07.03.2006 by filing suit on 18.07.2008, as the target date was lastly extended upto 2008. It was alleged that defendant had agreed to sell land measuring 9 kanals 11 marlas and received a sum of 3 lacs as earnest money and balance sale consideration of 1 lac was to be paid at time of registration and execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of agreement and marked his presence on the target date.
The defendant opposed the suit by denying execution of the agreement to sell and asserted that defendant along with Balbir Sharma (son-in-law of plaintiff) and Ritesh Sharma started nine PANKAJ KUMAR groups of committee of whom he was a member. Installements had 2019.01.11 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No.928 of 2016 (O&M) -2-
been paid upto 2002. Blank papers issued in this respect were misused by Ritesh Sharma and Balbir Sharma. Ritesh Sharma had filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which was withdrawn as compromise was effected.
Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there was no connection of the plaintiff with the other suit. Even if Ritesh Sharma was witness in another case, that witness could not have been looked into for adjudication of the instant lis , as each case was to be adjudicated on the basis of pleadings and evidence. One line here and there in testimony of the witnesses of the agreement to sell would not be a ground for non-suiting the plaintiff.
I am afraid aforementioned argument of Mr. Rajeshwar Singh is not maintainable, as the witnesses of agreement to sell have not supported case of the plaintiff, as they feigned ignorance about particulars of the agreement, much less, admitted that signatures were obtained on the blank papers. It was a mystery that parties had intention to sell the land or otherwise.
In such circumstances, finding of fact and law cannot be said to be suffering from illegality and perversity, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. The second appeal is dismissed.
| (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE |
|
|---|---|
| January 09, | 2019 |
| Pankaj* | |
| Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes/No |
|
| Whether Reportable Yes/No |
PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.01.11 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the second appeal regarding the dismissal of the suit for specific performance where witnesses failed to support the plaintiff.
Whether the finding of the court below is illegal, perverse, or raises a substantial question of law warranting interference.
Manohar Lal
Gurnam Singh
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
