Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1885 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTSuit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell on payment of balance sale consideration - HELD THAT:- It is held that the execution of agreement to sell to be duly proved. Plea of fiduciary relationship as pleaded by the defendants was rejected by the trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. Execution of agreement to sell Ex.P1 was duly proved. The agreement to sell has been proved with reference to statement of scribe as well as of attesting witnesses. Passing of consideration to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- has been proved with reference to the statement of attesting witnesses. PW-1 Ajit Singh who is one of the attesting witness to agreement to sell Ex.P1 has specifically deposed about due execution of agreement to sell at the instance of defendants No.1 and 2. He has also endorsed the factum of passing of consideration worth Rs.4,00,000/- in the presence of witnesses Bikram Singh son of Sher Singh and the agreement to sell was duly scribed by Rana Partap Singh deed writer and defendants No.1 and 2 appended their thumb impressions admitting the contents of the agreement to sell to be correct - Bald statement of Gurmail Singh as DW-1 has not been taken to be sufficient evidence as against convincing overwhelming evidence led by the plaintiff. Gurmail Singh DW-1 took a plea that thumb impressions of the defendants No.1 and 2 were taken upon the paper already prepared by the plaintiff in collusion with Ajit Singh. In cross examination the witness even did not admit his signature upon which the alleged agreement to sell Ex.P-1 was scribed. The stand advanced by DW-1 Gurmail Singh was held to be contradictory with the stand taken in the cross examination. Either the alleged agreement to sell Ex.P-1 was not the said document stated by the defendant in his cross examination or the earlier account submitted by the defendant was not correct. Bare perusal of Ex.P1 reveals that the stamp papers were purchased by DW-1 Gurmail Singh himself on 07.06.2003 from the stamp vendor but he miserably failed to examine the stamp vendor to prove the factum of his not visiting the stamp vendor for the purpose of purchasing the stamp papers in question. Once the agreement to sell is proved, grant of decree is a natural consequence of the same, unless and until a case of hardship is pleaded by the defendants in terms of Section 20 of the Special Relief Act. Since no such hardship has been pleaded by the defendants in the defence, therefore, question No.2 has to be answered against the appellant. Question No.3 in the context of fiduciary relationship of the defendants with Ajit Singh has not been proved to the extent of discarding the case of the plaintiff which is based on lawful evidence on record. Particulars of fiduciary relationship have not been proved on record with reference to evidence, therefore, question No.3 does not arise at all. Appeal dismissed.
|