AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arvind Kumar, J.—Both the Courts below have directed the appellants as well as respondents No. 3 and 4, their real brothers, to perform
their part of the contract for execution of sale-deed pursuant to agreement to sell dated 11.9.2004 in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs)
after taking the balance sale consideration.
As per the pleadings of the parties respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 11.9.2004 vide
which the appellants and respondents No. 3 and 4 agreed to sell their land for a sale consideration of Rs. 27,45,000/- and each of them also
received earnest money of Rs. 65000/- in the shape of bank draft while Rs. 3625/- in cash, totalling to Rs. 2,74,500/- to all of them. It is their case
that the defendants did not execute the sale-deed, which was to be executed on or before 11.3.2005. On the other hand, the stand of the
appellants was that they never agreed to sell their land at such a throw away price rather their thumb impressions were obtained fraudulently on the
agreement having blank columns.
The Courts below on analysis of evidence adduced on record by the parties, as noticed above, directed the defendants to execute the sale deed
on payment of balance sale consideration, as per agreement to sell dated 11.9.2004. Dis-satisfied with the same, instant regular second appeal has
been filed by the appellants.
The stand taken by the appellants, which otherwise runs contrary to that of taken by the other signatories to the agreement, who are none else
but their own brothers, has been dealt with by the learned trial Court in para No. 12 of its judgment and the same reads as under:-
After going through the entire evident led by both the parties and after considering the rival contentions, it is amply clear that although, the
plaintiffs have claimed that the agreement to sell dated 11.09.2004 Ex. PW-1/7 was executed by all the four defendants in favour of the plaintiff
No. 1 on receipt of earnest money of Rs. 68625/- by each of the defendants while agreeing to sell the suit land Rs. 24 lakhs per acre, yet, the
defendants Jeet Singh (DW2) and Ranbir Singh (DW3) have denied their signatures or thumb impressions on the agreement to sell. The defendants
Harpal Singh and Ranbir Singh have not come forward to deny their own thumb impressions or the thumb impressions of other defendants on the
agreement to sell. The defendants Ranbir Singh and Jeet Singh who have claimed that they were not present in their house at the time of execution
of this document have admitted the receipt of the earnest money in cash as well as through cheques which was deposited by them in their own
accounts. Except bald denial of their thumb impressions or signatures on the agreement to sell, they have not produced any cogent evidence to
substantiate their allegations in this regard. Even their real brothers Harpal and Balbir defendants have not come forward to support them in this
regard and they have already executed the sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs regarding the land of their shares. Therefore, the agreement to sell
dated 11.09.2004 stands fully proved from the statement of PW-1 T.P. Chauhan, the authorized representative of the plaintiff No. 1 company
who had signed the agreement on behalf of the plaintiffs and proved the execution of the same.
Likewise, the learned appellate Court below while affirming the findings of the learned trial Court held in the following manner, the relevant
extract of which has been taken from para No. 15 of the judgment:-
15...In the case in hand, the agreement to sell Ex. PW 1/7 has been executed on a stamp paper, most of the contents are typed. It contained
thumb impressions of all the four brothers i.e. appellants and proforma respondents. The proforma respondents and one of the appellant Ranbir
Singh in the written statement have admitted their thumb impressions. Appellant Jeet Singh did not file any separate written statement denying his
thumb impressions or that this thumb impression had been forged on the said document. Hence, at this stage, he cannot get away by pleading that
his signatures were forged. No effort was made by the appellant despite the order of the trial court to examine any finger prints expert in their
evidence. No cogent evidence has been adduced on the part of the appellants to substantiate their allegations except for the bald denial of their
thumb impressions. It is, however, admitted that they have received the earnest money in cash as well as through cheque.
Thus, in view of the reasoning, as reproduced above, there is no scope for interference with the findings returned by the Courts below. There is
no merit in the appeal as well as application filed by the appellants for leading additional evidence, which has adequately been dealt with by the
appellate Court below, hence, the same are dismissed.