Nihal Kaur and Ors (B.O.) v. Gurdev Singh and Ors

IN T

Nihal Kaur and Gurdev Singh a

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Res

(pro MANDEEP PA

1.

Thi decree dated 24 decreeing the su performance of Additional Dist appeal. Brief Facts

2.

Singh, being ow marlas, entered total considerati THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da Others

VERSUS and Others

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for th r. F.S.Virk, Advocate for respond spondents No.2 to 7 service disp oforma respondents) -.-

ANNU,J. is Regular Second Appeal is d

4.12.1988 passed by the learn uit of the plaintiff Gurdev Singh f agreement to sell dated 29.05 trict Judge, Sangrur on 26.08. e plaintiff pleaded that defend wners in possession of agricult into an agreement to sell the sa ion of ₹28,481.25/- (₹2100/- pe

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-1830-1999 (O&M) served on:-27.08.2025 ate of Decision : 02.09.2025

....Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU he appellants. dent no.1. pensed with directed against the judgment ned Sub Judge 1st Class, Suna h for possession by way of spec

5.1986, as affirmed by the learn .1998, dismissing the defendan dants Gurchand Singh and Gurb tural land measuring 10 kanals aid land to him on 29.05.1986 fo er killa). A sum of ₹10,000/- w

- am, cific ned nt's bax or a

paid as earnest m by Kulwant Rai was to be execu present on the a the balance con failed to appea performance, or

3.

agreement and further claimed alienation witho parties. Other o joinder of partie

4.

Rep

5.

Fro issues:- 1) agr Rs. 2) wil 3) per dec money at the time of execution. i and attested by Sadha Ram an uted on or before 10.06.1986. Th appointed date in the office of th nsideration of ₹25,000/- and the ar. He prayed for a decree fo r in the alternative, recovery of d e defendants contested the asserting that Ex.P1 was a forg d that the land was coparcenar out necessity, and that the sons objections of locus standi, val es were also raised. plication was filed by the plainti om the pleadings, the learned Whether the defendants N reement dated 29.05.86 in favo .10,000/- as earnest money? OPP Whether the plaintiff was re lling to perform his part of the co Whether the plaintiff is ent rformance of the contract date cree for the recovery of Rs.20,00

The agreement, Ex.P1, was scrib nd Harchand Singh. The sale d e plaintiff claimed that he remain he Sub Registrar, Lehra, along w attesting witnesses, but defenda or possession by way of spec double earnest money. suit, denying execution of ged and fabricated document. Th ry/ancestral property, incapable s of the defendants were necess luation, under-stamping, and n ff reiterating his stand. trial Court framed the follow No.1 and 2 have executed our of Gurdev Singh on receipt P eady and willing and still ready ontract? OPP titled to a decree for the spec d 29.5.86 on in the alternativ 00/-? OPP

- bed deed ned with ants cific any hey e of sary non-wing an t of cific

4) file 5) 6) of c

7. OP

8.

29.

9.

6.

In witnesses:-

i) agr wa Sin bef

ii) ver

iii) exe

iv) Fin Q2 Sin Whether the plaintiff has no e the present suit? OPD Whether the suit is not maint Whether the suit has not bee court fee and jurisdiction? OPD Whether the suit is bad fo PD Whether there are material

05.86 and the same is forged and Relief. order to prove his case, the PW1 Gurdev Singh (plaintiff reement Ex.P1 after receiving ₹ s scribed by Kulwant Rai and att ngh. He reiterated his readiness a fore Sub Registrar with balance m PW2 Sadha Ram (attestin rsion and confirmed thumb impre PW3 Harchand Singh (att ecution and receipt of considerati PW4 Varinder Bhushan ngerprint Expert) compared three , Q3) with specimen impression ngh. He opined that Q1 and Q3

locus standi and cause of action tainable in the present form? OP en properly valued for the purp or non-joinder of necessary par alteration in the agreement da d fabricated document? OPD plaintiff examined the follow f) deposed that defendants execu ₹10,000 earnest money. Agreem tested by Sadha Ram and Harch and willingness, including prese money. ng witness) supported plainti essions of defendants on Ex.P1. testing witness) corroborated ion. Bhatnagar (Handwriting e thumb impressions on Ex.P1 (Q s S1 and S2 of defendant Gurch were identical with S1. As rega

- n to D pose rty? ated wing uted ment nce ff's Q1,

Q2 con spe

7.

On

i) for

ii) forg

iii) Sin

iv) a ph Findings of Tri

8.

consistent testim opinion. The pa observed that s regarding dates The burden shif they failed to di

9.

before Sub Reg of locus standi, was decreed on , he noted that due to heavy ink definite opinion could be giv ncluded that two of the disput ecimen, proving execution by Gu n the other hand, the defendants e DW1 Jiwan Lal deposed th 30 years without licence, and de DW2 Gurchand Singh (def gery, and claimed land to be anc DW3 Chanan Singh depose ngh, not defendants. DW4 Siri Ram Ahlmad app hotocopy of agreement did not s ial Court e learned trial Court held that ex mony of plaintiff and two attest ayment of earnest money of ₹1 stray answers of illiterate/rusti or times were immaterial, as th fted upon defendants to prove fo scharge. e plaintiff's readiness and willin gistrar with balance money and valuation, non-joinder, and ance

24.12.1988.

impression, it was blurred and t ven. Nonetheless, he categorica ted impressions matched with urchand Singh-defendant. examined the following witnesse hat he had been writing docume enied execution. fendant) denied execution, alle cestral. ed that land was owned by Gur eared with record and claimed t show scribe's signature. xecution of Ex.P1 stood proved ting witnesses, supported by exp 10,000 was established. The Co ic witnesses in cross-examinat heir core testimony remained int orgery or blank paper theory, wh ngness was proved by his prese attesting witnesses. The objecti estral nature were rejected. The

- thus ally es:- ents ged dev that d by pert ourt tion act. hich nce ions

Findings of Ap

10.

application of dismissed by tr defendants faile established thro denials could no was also proved months to depos

11.

Fee Singh and Harb have preferred th

12.

Up the present app proforma respon Arguments of A

13.

Lea fabricated and P recall date/time regarding scribi signature, and p agent Girdhari L examined. It wa were co-sharers to prove coparc pellate Court e learned lower Appellate C defendants to frame issue reg rial Court on 30.08.1988 and w d to prove the land was coparcen ough attesting witnesses and ot outweigh such cogent proof. P d. The appeal was dismissed on sit balance sale consideration. eling aggrieved, Nihal Kaur wi ans Singh, sons of Gurchand Sin he Regular Second Appeal. on notice, respondent No.1/plain peal. So far as respondents No ndents, their service was dispens Appellants arned counsel for the appellants PW1 and PW2 admitted in their of execution, the scribe Kulw ing of agreement to sell, DW4 payment of earnest money not Lal, from whom plaintiff alleges as further contended that land w , and defendants could not alien cenary nature were wrongly d

Court concurred, noting that garding coparcenary property w was never challenged. It held t nary. Execution of agreement sto expert opinion. Defendants' b Plaintiff's readiness and willingn n 26.08.1998, granting plaintiff t idow of Gurchand Singh, Balw ngh-defendant, being his legal h ntiff-Gurdev Singh chose to con .2 to 7 are concerned, they be sed with. s argued that Ex.P1 was forged cross-examination that they did want Rai never appeared to dep showed photocopy lacked scrib proved since alleged commiss s to have borrowed money, was was coparcenary, sons of defenda nate without necessity. Applicati dismissed. Learned counsel furt

- was that ood bare ness two want eirs ntest eing not pose be's sion not ants ions

argued that the specific perform Arguments of R

14.

Lea argued that exe opinion. Once e alleged forgery concluded by di issue, which att He further subm relied upon by hand. Findings of this

15.

Hav The concurrent evidence and do

16.

Plaintiffs PW1, defendants exec money. Their te objection raised and month of ag of the fact that t exact dates or fo and affixed thum plaintiff failed to prove readine mance could not be sustained. Respondents arned counsel for respondents cution was proved by testimony execution was established, burd or fraud, which they failed. Ob ismissal of application to prove tained finality. Defendants were mitted that other objections lac appellants were distinguishable s Court ving considered rival submissio findings of both courts below a o not warrant interference. e execution of agreement Ex.P1 , PW2 and PW3 attesting wi cuted agreement in their prese estimony has not been discredit d by counsel for the plaintiff is t greement to sell and its contents they admitted being illiterate. Th formal details, but the material f mb impressions in their presence

ess and willingness, and decree supported concurrent findings y of attesting witnesses and exp den shifted on defendants to pr bjection regarding coparcenary w the same by framing of additio e competent to alienate their sha cked substance and the judgme e and not applicable to the case ons, I find no merit in this app are based on sound appreciation has been established beyond dou itnesses consistently testified t nce and received ₹10,000 earn ted in cross-examination. The o that they failed to recall exact d s, however, Court cannot lose si hus, rustic witnesses may not re fact that defendants executed Ex e remains consistent.

- for pert ove was onal are. ents e in eal. n of ubt. that nest only date ight call x.P1

17.

It a Kulwant Rai do settled that onc consistently pro parties, the abse formal writer o attesting witnes both PW2 Sadhu plaintiff's versio

18.

Cru thumb impressi impressions S1 identical with sp ink, which blur expert's conclus identical matche excess ink does inference that E Singh.

19.

Thu established, the blank papers. N cannot outweigh

20.

Com been proved. Pl also deserves to be noticed that o not in any manner weaken th ce the attesting witnesses hav oved the execution of the agreem ence of the scribe in the witness b f the document and the essenti ses who have directly witnessed u Ram and PW3 Harchand Singh on, thereby proving the due execu ucially, PW4 handwriting and ions of defendant Gurchand Si and S2. He categorically opined pecimen S1. Only Q2 could not rred its ridges. However, this sion, since two impressions posit es are found, the non-comparab s not discredit the document. O Ex.P1 bears genuine thumb im us, execution of Ex.P1 stands burden shifts upon defendants o such evidence has been brough h expert's testimony and evidenc ming to the readiness and willing laintiff has categorically stated t

the non-examination of the scr he plaintiff's case. The law is w ve been examined and they h ment to sell in the presence of box is not fatal. The scribe is onl ial requirement is the testimony d the execution. In the present ca h have unequivocally supported ution of Ex. P1. fingerprint expert compared th ingh on Ex.P1 with his specim d that impressions Q1 and Q3 w yield definite opinion due to he circumstance does not shake tively matched. Once two clear bility of one impression because On the contrary, it strengthens mpressions of defendant Gurch s duly proved. Once execution s to prove their plea of forgery ht on record. Mere denials by DW ce of attesting witnesses. gness of plaintiff, the same has a that he remained present before

- ribe well have ly a y of ase, hree men were avy e of n is y or W2

Sub Registrar w defendants wer Section 16(c) of

21.

judgment of t Singh[2018(3) R the Hon'ble Coo any positive step it was held that always been rea further emphasi agreement to se own readiness a be considered o decision, howev Here, the plaint by producing co went to the offi presence. He als that he had alre for payment of t was present on sale deed. This e the ratio of Gurm with balance sale consideration a re never present and thereby f Specific Relief Act, 1963 is ful e reliance placed by learned c this Court in Gurmail Singh RCR (Civil) 658] is also misplac ordinate Bench observed that th p taken by him in order to show t the plaintiff must assert and p ady and willing to perform the es zed that merely because the def ll would not absolve the plaintif and willingness, and that the con once the plaintiff had first been ver, is clearly distinguishable f tiff not only pleaded but also pr ogent evidence. On the stipulate ice of the Sub-Registrar and mo so proved on record affidavit Ex eady paid Rs.10,000/- as earnest the balance sale consideration. H that day with the balance sale evidence clearly establishes his r mail Singh's case (supra) does n

and witnesses on the date fixed, defaulted. Hence, requirement ly satisfied. counsel for the appellants on h and another v. Jagdish ced. In para 8 of the said judgme he plaintiff therein had not plea w his readiness and willingness, prove that he has performed or ssential terms of the contract. It w fendant had denied execution of ff of his duty to assert and prove nduct of the defendants could o able to establish his case. The s from the facts of the present ca roved his readiness and willingn ed date i.e. 10.06.1986, the plain oved application Ex.P3 to mark x. P2, wherein he specifically sta t money and 10.06.1986 was fix He further proved vide Ex.P3 that consideration for execution of readiness and willingness, and, t not apply to the present case.

- but t of Pal ent, ded has was his only said ase. ness ntiff his ated xed t he

22.

framing issue t

30.08.1988. No nature of proper co-sharer to alie mentioned, tran Defendants No.

23.

Obj concurrently rej Conclusion

24.

In concurrent findi

25.

dated 24.12.198

26.

Pen

September 02, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh e plea of coparcenary property to prove coparcenary property o appeal was filed, and order rty being coparcernary remains u enate his undivided share, and e nsfer operates as to his share, 1 and 2 were therefore competen jections of valuation, non-join ected and rightly so. view of the above, I find n ings of the courts below. e Regular Second Appeal is d 88 and 26.08.1998 of the courts b nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

is an afterthought. Application was dismissed by trial court attained finality meaning ther unproved on record. Law permi even if specific khasra numbers subject to adjustment in partiti nt to sell their share. nder, and locus standi have b no illegality or perversity in dismissed. Judgments and decr below are affirmed. stands disposed off. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- for on eby ts a are ion. een