Imran Khan v. Jamshed Ahmed Deceased Through His Lrs and Ors

IN THE Imran Khan Jamshed Ahmed

CORAM: HON

Present: Mr. A

Mr.

Ms.

for a

Mr. V

Mr. V

for r

PARMOD GOY

Appellant-dated 17.02.2018 suit for possess

23.01.2010 pref defendant was a balance sale cons by Additional D

¶2Responden performance of defendant being o E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

Versus (since deceased) through legal r 'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMO Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Sushil Jain, Advocate and Ridhima Khindria, Advocate appellant. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Adv Vijayveer Singh, Advocate respondents.

YAL, J. -defendant is aggrieved by im 8 passed by Civil Judge (Senior sion by way of specific perf ferred by respondents-plaintiffs asked to execute sale deed with sideration and by judgment and d District Judge, Faridabad vide ant was also dismissed. nts-plaintiffs in their suit for p agreement dated 23.01.2010 owner of agricultural land measu AND HARYANA AT H RSA-824-2025(O&M) Reserved on:28.10.2025 Pronounced on:02.12.2025 ...Appellant epresentative and Others …Respondents OD GOYAL Advocate with ocate with mpugned judgment and decree Division), Faridabad, whereby formance of agreement dated s was decreed and appellant-thin two months on receipt of decree dated 06.02.2025 passed e which appeal preferred by possession by way of specific had asserted that appellant-uring 03 kanals 05 marlas, 1/5th

share out of total situated in Reven offered to sell the money. Upon wh sale considerat Rs.1,50,00,000/- entitled to get i defendant in Kuw sale deed upon w same as and whe On the last date f at the Office of S got their presenc to appellant-defe 2012, however, a legal notice date no efforts were Therefore, suit fo

¶3Appellant-preliminary obje standi, estoppel,

l land measuring 31 kanals 05 m nue Estate of Village Madalpur, e said land as he wanted to settle hich, parties entered into agreem tion of Rs.1,65,00,000/- wa was paid as earnest money. ant fails to execute sale deed, it executed through process o ant to get sale deed executed. Re wait in the month of April, 2011 which appellant-defendant had a en he will visit India on the date fixed in the agreement, responde Sub-Registrar, Faridabad with b ant failed to come present. Resp ce marked. Thereafter also, respo ndant to execute sale deed and a appellant-defendant kept on delay d 25.04.2012 was issued and d e made by appellant-defendan or specific performance was pref -defendant had duly contested ections as regards to maintaina non-fixation of proper Court marlas, fully described in plaint, , Tehsil and District Faridabad, e in Kuwait and was in need of ment dated 23.01.2010 and total as agreed, out of which It was agreed that in case respondents-plaintiffs shall be of law. Request was made to espondent-plaintiff No.1 visited and again requested to execute assured that he will execute the already fixed in the agreement. ents-plaintiffs remained present balance consideration, however, pondents-plaintiffs accordingly ondents-plaintiffs made request again visited his village in April ying the matter. Accordingly, a espite issuance of legal notice, nt to execute the sale deed. ferred. the suit by taking number of ability, cause of action, locus fee, mis-joinder of necessary

parties. Appellan claimed that his stamp papers ha had applied for lo papers were ob Agreement was suit was prayed f

¶4Following i. Whe of sp

23.0 ii. Whe injun agre iii. Whe the p iv. Whe preli v. Whe of n and vi. Whe of co vii. Relie

¶5Learned C respondents-plain also decided in fa Accordingly, sui

nt-defendant had denied executio signatures were obtained by r ving revenue tickets. It was as oan of Rs.5,00,000/- and in lieu btained by respondents-plainti stated to be forged and fabrica for. issues were framed:- ether plaintiffs are entitled to see pecific performance of the con

01.2010?OPP ether plaintiffs are also entitled nction restraining the defenda eement to sell, negotiating or alie ether plaintiffs have no locus sta present suit?OPP ether suit of the plaintiff is iminary objection no.2 of written ether the suit of the plaintiffs is ecessary parties and plaintiffs conduct to file the present suit?O ether suit of the plaintiffs is not p ourt fee and jurisdiction?OPD ef. Court of first instance decided i ntiffs and against appellant-def avour of respondents-plaintiffs a it for specific performance was on of agreement in totality. He respondents-plaintiffs on blank serted that appellant-defendant of security, signatures on blank ffs from appellant-defendant. ated. Accordingly, dismissal of ek possession of the land by way ntract/agreement to sell dated d to seek relief of permanent ant from further entering into enating the suit property?OPP andi and cause of action to file not maintainable in view of n statement?OPD bad on account of non-joinder are estopped by their own act OPD properly valued for the purpose ssue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of fendant. Issue nos.3 to 6 were and against appellant-defendant. s decreed. Appellant-defendant

was directed to e within two mon dismissed. First leaned Court of f

¶6In present disputed by app taken a loan of R return of Rs.5,00 papers were retu dated 23.01.2010 agreement dated namely J.C. Shar whereas J.C. Sh No.1 had also ap Khalil Ahmed w of agreement on defendant, where appeared for app money lender an signatures on cer (Ex.P/1). It is wo taken on alleged

¶7On consid below that it is t

execute sale deed after receipt of nths. First appeal preferred by Appellate Court had affirmed first instance. t case, signatures on agreemen pellant-defendant. Case of appe Rs.5,00,000/- and three stamp pa 0,000/- taken by appellant-defen urned back and one was misused

¶0From pleadings and evidence d 23.01.2010 (Ex.P/1) was sign rma and Khalil Ahmed. Khalil A harma appeared for defendant a ppeared as PW-1. Both respond while appearing as PW-1 and PW n payment of Rs.1,50,00,000/- a eas J.C.Sharma DW-2, the oth pellant-defendant had asserted th nd had obtained signatures of a rtain blank papers and later conv orth noticing that DW-2 had nev blank papers prior to appearing b deration, I am in agreement with the evidence of respondents-plai f balance consideration amount appellant-defendant was also d all the findings recorded by nt and receipts are not being ellant-defendant is that he had apers were taken from him. On ndant, two of the stamp papers d to forge the agreement to sell e of plaintiff it is made out that ed by two attesting witnesses, Ahmed was examined as PW-2, as DW-2. Respondent-plaintiff dents-plaintiff No.1 as well as W-2 had asserted due execution as earnest money to appellant-her attesting witness, who had hat respondents-plaintiffs is the appellant-defendant along with verted the same into agreement ver protested for his signatures before the Court as DW-2. h conclusion drawn by Courts intiffs and that of PW2 (one of

the attesting witn evidence of ap J.CSharma-DW2

¶8It is also w denying their sig to prove that the defendant, which plaintiffs, it is cle wriggle out, appe It is further wort plaintiffs has no defendant had rat controverting the converted into a Therefore, it is t has rightly been DW-2 J.C. Sharm have also examin signatures or whi

¶9Faced with prove forgery/fra Ex.D2, the signe papers were retu

nesses), which is more reliable a ppellant-defendant and anothe

¶2worth noticing that neither appe gnatures on agreement. Once, si e signatures were taken on blank h he has failed to discharge. From early made out that agreement to ellant-defendant is taking a plea th noticing that receipt of legal ot been denied by appellant-def ther referred to the errors in the e allegations made therein and a agreement to sell. No complain ant either before civil autho the evidence of PW-2, attesting accepted and relied upon by Cou ma, which appears to be an after ned Ex.P-1 and found that there i ile noting down contents of agree h above conclusion, learned cou aud played by appellant-defen d blank papers dated 23.01.2010 urned back on receipt of loan and trustworthy rather than the er attesting witness, namely ellant-defendant nor DW-2 are gnatures are admitted the onus k papers was on the appellant-m the evidence of respondents-o sell was duly executed and to a of signatures on blank papers. l notice issued by respondents-fendant specifically. Appellant-notice but not replied the same asserting that blank papers were nt or FIR was ever lodged by orities or police authorities. witness Khalil Ahmed, which urts below than the evidence of rthought. Learned Courts below is no manipulation in appended ements. unsel for appellant had tried to ndant by referring Ex.D1 and 0 to claim that two blank stamp n amount by the respondents-

plaintiffs and on perusal of the st Ex.D1, Ex.D2, E for execution of a defendant. No do sold the stamp having endorsed has been rightly himself is claimi from his custody purchased the s accepted. Defend all three stamp p by him.

¶10It is worth stamp papers we stamp papers an explain as to why papers. No prote defendant to claim is clearly proved afterthought. It is case and all of t favour of all the

ne was misused fraudulently fo tamp papers goes to show that Ex.D3 were issued by stamp ven agreement to sell and all were pu oubt, N.K. Kaushik had appeare papers to appellant-defendant, the stamp papers. Therefore, ev ignored by learned Courts belo ing purchase of three stamp pap y. Once, it is proved that it is stamp papers, the story of a dant-appellant had failed to expl apers from respondents-plaintiff noticing that as per case of app ere returned. When appellant-d nd two were returned, it is appe y he had not protested against n est or legal notice or request m all stamp papers. From the co d that the story of return of two s further worth noticing that ther them are brothers being son of three brothers jointly. Therefore or agreement Ex.D1. However, all the three stamp papers i.e. ndor, namely Sh. N.K. Kaushik urchased by none but appellant-ed as DW-1 and denied having however, he had not denied vidence of DW1-N.K. Kaushik ow specifically when appellant ers and producing two of them s appellant-defendant who had appellant-defendant cannot be lain as to why he had not taken fs on alleged repayment of loan ellant, the money was paid and defendant had purchased three ellant-defendant, who needs to on-return of all the three stamp was ever made by appellant-nduct of appellant-defendant, it stamp papers appears to be an re are three plaintiffs in present Khurseed Ahmed. Ex.P1 is in e, argument raised on behalf of

respondents that execution of thr however, only o remained in poss now trying to ta worth noticing th (Ex.P2 to Ex.P4) witness namely neither been deni DW2. Argument are of 20.01.201

23.01.2010 crea argument is with also be paid in pa

22.01.2010 and 2 entered. There i shown that no p signatures on rec which goes to pro

¶11Learned C succeeded in pro duly signed by a was purchased b

t appellant-defendant had purc ree agreements in favour of re one agreement was actually ex session of appellant-defendant o ake advantage is more plausible hat it is not only the agreement to ant but appellant-defendant ha ) by appending the signatures alo DW2-J.C. Sharma. The signat ied nor have been explained eith raised by learned counsel for ap 10 and 22.01.2010 and agreeme tes doubt over due execution hout any basis, the consideration ast. It is worth noticing that paym

23.01.2010 and on receipt of last is no legal impleadment in adop payment was made and receipts ceipts have not been shown to be ove case of respondents-plaintiff Courts have rightly held tha oving that agreement as well as appellant-defendant as well as at by none other than appellant-d hased three stamp papers for spondents-plaintiffs separately, xecuted and two stamp papers of which appellant-defendant is e in facts of present case. It is o sell which has been signed by as also acknowledged receipts ong with signatures of attesting tures on Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 have her by appellant-defendant or by ppellant that two other receipts ent was allegedly executed on of agreement. However, the n for an agreement to sale can ment was made on 20.01.2010, t payment agreement to sell was pting such manner, unless it is s were not executed. However, e forged by appellant-defendant, fs. at respondents-plaintiffs have receipts (Ex.P2 to Ex.P4) were ttesting witnesses. Stamp paper

evidence, in the f cannot be held to upon evidence l readiness and wi decreed the sui appreciation of e dismissed being w

02.12.2025 Sunil Chander

facts and circumstances noted ab o be perverse or having any de ed by parties. Learned Courts illingness on the part of respond it. Judgments by both the C evidence. No question of law ar without any merit.

:

: bove, by both the Courts below fect. The appreciation is based below have rightly concluded dents-plaintiffs and had rightly ourts below are based upon rises in present case. Appeal is (PARMOD GOYAL)