The court found that no substantial question of law arose and that the findings of fact by the lower courts were not perverse, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the L.Rs. of Kishan Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") against the judgment and decree passed by Shri Joga Singh, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ropar, in Civil Suit No. RT-376/8-5-1991, decided on 23-12-1993 and the judgment and decree passed by Shri Mohinder Pal Additional District Judge, Ropar, in Civil Appeal No. RT-74/21-2-94/1-7-1997, decided on 13-12- 1999.

2. The respondent had filed the aforesaid civil suit seeking a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12-5-1985 regarding sale of plot No. 659 measuring 150 square yards situated in Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar. The deceased had executed an agreement for sale of the aforesaid plot in favour of the respondent dated 12-5-1985 for a total consideration of Rs. 12,000.00. On the date of the execution of the agreement for sale, the deceased had received a sum of Rs. 5000.00 as earnest money. The agreement was thumb marked by the deceased and attested by two attesting witnesses i.e. Mahender Singh, Panch, of village Majri Jatta, Ropar (P.W. 3) and Hardial Singh, Lumberdar of village Sangatpur. The agreement has been scribed by Mehar Singh Bala (PW. 2). The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 6-5-1988. The balance consideration of Rs. 7000.00 was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the execution of the sale deed. All the expenses of the sale deed were to be borne by the respondent. He requested the deceased many times to execute the sale deed. It was also pleaded that the respondent was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. On 6-5-1988, he went to the office of the Sub-Registrar with balance sale consideration of Rs. 7000.00 and other expenses for performing his part of the contract, but the deceased did not turn up to execute the sale deed. He remained there upto 4.55 p.m. and then moved an application alongwith affidavit for execution of the sale deed. The Sub Registrar, Ropar, called the deceased, but no body appeared on his behalf to execute the sale deed. The deceased did not execute the sale deed on the ground that a civil suit regarding the plot in dispute was pending in the civil Court. He had stated that the sale deed will be executed after the decision of the civil suit. But he did not execute the sale deed as the market price in Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar, had increased many times.

3. The deceased filed the written statement. He took a preliminary objection that the suit has been got filed by Amar Singh son of Jaswant Singh of village Bheora, Tehsil and District, Ropar (hereinafter referred to as "Bheora"). It was also pleaded that the agreement for sale has been executed in league with the respondent and it had been manufactured by Bheora and the respondent. The agreement is bogus, illegal and void for the following reasons :-

(i) That stamp of the agreement in question is alleged to have been purchased on 9-5-1983. The stamp paper does not mention the name of the stamp vendor, or by whom it was purchased. (ii) The limitation for the use of the stamp paper had already expired on the date of the execution of the agreement. (iii) On the first page of the agreement, there are clear signs of forgery as there are three smudged thumb impressions marked A, B and D. This shows that the thumb impressions were obtained earlier and thereafter the agreement in question was manufactured. (iv) The respondent and the attesting witnesses are not known to the deceased. At that time he was aged about 90 years. (v) The thumb impressions over the agreement in question have been obtained by fraudulent means. Therefore, the agreement is not enforceable in law.

4 On merits, it has been stated that no agreement was executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent as alleged. The agreement in question is a result of fraud and undue influence and is a patent forgery. The thumb impressions of the defendants or some imposter might have been im