RUPINDER SINGH Vs. SAJJAN SINGH ALIAS BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that defendant-appellant No. 1 Rupinder Singh had entered into an agreement to sell the suit land for Rs. 91,000.00 and had received Rs. 20,000.00 in cash on 20/1/1994. It has further been found that the sale-deed was to be executed by 1/3/1994.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit initially for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from alienating the suit land to any other person. When the defendant- appellant No. 1 alienated the suit property to defendant-respondent No. 2 and the cause of action for claiming specific performance has also arisen after 1/3/2004 then the plaintiff respondent got amended his suit and converted the same for specific performance of the contract. The plaintiff-respondent has been found to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. As a consequence of the aforementioned finding the suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed and the sale-deed Ex. D-16 dated 15/2/1994 executed by the defendant appellant No. 1 in favour of the defendant-appellant No. 2 who is his real sister has been found to be illegal as it is found to be hit by the principle of lis pendence because the same was executed during the pendency of the civil suit. Accordingly, the defendant- appellant No. 1 has been directed to execute the sale- deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff-respondent after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 77,000/- Usual directions for execution of the sale-deed through the Court has also been given. The agreement to sell Ex. PW2/A has been found to be duly signed by the defendant-appellant No. 1 and the plea of fabrication raised by him has not been accepted. The report of the expert with regard to the signatures of defendant-appellant No. 1 has been rejected. It is pertinent to mention that the expert Arvind Sood in his report has concluded that it was a case of copy- ing forgery. The views of the Appellate Court with regard to report of handwriting expert read as under :

(3.) Shri R.C. Setia, learned Senior Counsel has argued that the expert report could not be discarded merely on the ground that standard signatures of defendant-appellant No. 1 were not available when demanded by him. According to the learned Counsel the signature on the agreement to sell dated 20.1.1994 are not authentic and the opinion given by the expert should not have been accepted.