Dismissed¶24

Rajesh Kumar v. Omkar

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jan 2025RSA/746/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajesh Kumar v. Omkar, RSA-746-2019, oral judgment dated 20.01.2025 delivered at Chandigarh by Deepak Gupta, J. Subject: suit for specific performance; reversal of decree by first Appellate Court. Keywords: agreement to sell Ex.P-1; receipt Ex.P-2; thumb impression; execution denied in written statement and testimony; onus/burden of proof on plaintiff; attesting witness credibility; stamp vendor not examined; stamp register; scribe's name absent; no interference with appellate finding; second appeal dismissed. No statute or precedent was cited in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Onus lay upon the appellant-plaintiff to prove that the purported thumb impressions on Ex.P-1 and P-2 were those of the defendant, and the first Appellate Court rightly so observed. ¶20

Rajesh Kumar Vs Omkar — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the agreement to sell (Ex.P-1) and receipt (Ex.P-2), purportedly bearing the defendant's thumb impression, were duly proved by the plaintiff-appellant. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

Onus lay upon the appellant-plaintiff to prove that the purported thumb impressions on Ex.P-1 and P-2 were those of the defendant, and the first Appellate Court rightly so observed.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Although the plaintiff examined himself and one attesting witness to prove the agreement and receipt, he failed to prove that the thumb impressions on Ex.P-1 and P-2 were those of the defendant.

¶19

Key takeaways

The stamp vendor was not examined so as to produce the register whereby the stamp was allegedly sold to the defendant, and the agreement and receipt did not bear the name of the stamp vendor or the scribe — circumstances weighing against proof of execution.ratio¶20
Of the attesting witnesses, one was known to the plaintiff and belonged to his village, while the other witness was not known to the defendant, further undermining the proof of execution.ratio¶21
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court found no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment recorded by the first Appellate Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Specific performance — Regular second appeal (RSA-746-2019) by plaintiff-decree holder against first Appellate Court's judgment dated 11.10.2018, which reversed the trial Court's decree dated 31.08.2015. Agreement to sell (Ex.P-1) and receipt (Ex.P-2) purportedly bore the defendant's thumb impression; the defendant denied execution in his written statement and testimony. Plaintiff examined himself and one attesting witness but failed to prove the thumb impressions. Onus lay on the plaintiff; the stamp vendor was not examined to produce the register showing sale of the stamp, and the agreement and receipt bore neither the stamp vendor's nor the scribe's name; one attesting witness was known to the plaintiff and belonged to his village while the other was unknown to the defendant. No ground to interfere with the well-reasoned appellate judgment; second appeal dismissed.

¶1

AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

107 RSA-746-2019 Date of Decision.:20.01.2025

Rajesh Kumar

Appellant

Vs.

Omkar Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

¶11

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Suit for specific performance filed by plain�ff (appellant herein) was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 31.08.2015. However the appeal filed by the defendant (respondent herein) was accepted by the first Appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.10.2018 a,er holding that agreement to sell and receipt relied by the plain�ff were not proved.

¶13

Against the aforesaid reversal, plain�ff has approached this Court.

¶14

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that wellreasoned judgment of the trial Court has been wrongly reversed by the Appellate Court by ignoring the fact that agreement and receipt executed by the defendant were well proved on record.

¶15

A,er hearing learned counsel for the appellant-plain�ff and a,er going through the trial Court record perused with able assistance provided by learned counsel for the appellant, I do not agree with the conten�on as raised by learned counsel.

¶16

The judgment passed by the Appellate Court would reveal that

¶17

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.20 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RSA-746-2019

¶19

the agreement and receipt Ex.P-1 and P-2 are purported to bear thumb impression of the defendant. Defendant in his wri3en statement and tes�mony denied the execu�on of the agreement and receipt. Though plain�ff examined himself as well as one of the a3es�ng witness so as to prove the aforesaid agreement and receipt but failed to prove that the thumb impression on Ex.P-1 and P-2 were that of the defendant.

¶20

Learned Appellate Court rightly observed that onus was upon the appellant-plain�ff to prove that the purported thumb impression on Ex.P-1 and P-2 were that of the defendant. It has also been no�ced by the Appellate Court that stamp vendor has not been examined so as to produce the register, whereby the stamp was allegedly sold to the defendant. Not only this, the agreement and receipt did not bear the name of the stamp vendor and the scribe.

¶21

The perusal of the tes�mony of plain�ff also reveals that one of the a3es�ng witness was known to him and belonged to his village; whereas even other witness was not known to the defendant.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does

¶23

not find any reason so as to interfere in the well-reasoned judgment as recorded by the first Appellate Court so as to call for any interference.

¶24

No merits. Dismissed.

¶25

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶26

January 20, 2025 Nee�ka Tuteja

¶27

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No