The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove due execution of an agreement and the influence of discrepancies and legal provisions such as Evidence Act, Section 68 and Indian Stamp Act, Section 35 on the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Palli, J.

1. Vide this judgment and order I shall decide two appeals, for, these arise out of the same suit and the judgment and decree, being assailed is common.

2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 08.01.2010.

3. In brief, the case set out by the plaintiff was that parties had entered into an agreement to sell dated 08.01.2010, qua a house comprised in land measuring 9 marlas, situated within the abadi of village Kot Krar Khan Tehsil and District Kapurthala, for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. A sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- were paid by way of earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement itself. The balance sale consideration was to be paid on 15.01.2012, that is the date fixed for execution and registration of the sale deed. The plaintiff-appellant has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. For, 15.01.2012, happened to be Sunday, plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar on 16.01.2012, with the balance sale consideration but the defendant failed to turn up and perform his part of the contract. Thus the suit.

4. In defence, the defendant denied the execution of the agreement dated 08.01.2010 and clarified that in fact defendant had obtained loan from the plaintiff and appended his signatures/thumb impressions over certain blank papers and stamp papers as instructed by him. The loan amount i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- was eventually returned by the defendant to the plaintiff but she did not return the blank papers upon which she had obtained his signatures/thumb impressions. Thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

5. Vide judgment and decree dated 01.10.2015, the trial Court decreed the suit qua an alternate relief for recovery of principal amount i.e. Rs.3,30,000/- paid by way of earnest money along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of execution of the agreement dated 08.01.2010, till its realization.

6. Both the parties, being aggrieved, assailed the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2015, vide two separate appeals. For, the Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017, dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant claiming the primary relief for specific performance of agreement and on the contrary accepted the appeal filed by the defendant-respondent and dismissed the suit, the plaintiff appellant is before this Court in Regular Second Appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and examined the records.

8. Needless to assert, for, the plaintiff to claim a decree for specific performance of the contract, firstly, she was required to prove due execution of the agreement to sell dated 08.01.2010 (Ex.P4). However, upon a due and comprehensive analysis of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, the Appellate Court concluded that plaintiff failed to examine the scribe of the agreement Ex.P4. Not just that even the name of the scribe was neither disclosed in the plaint nor even in the affidavit Ex.PA, tendered by the plaintiff in her examination-in-chief. Further, in her cross-examination she conceded that she did not know as to who scribed the agreement and if the scribe had even entered the agreement in his deed register. She also deposed that prior to the institution of the suit she did not go to the Office of the Sub Registrar for execution of the sale deed but her husband and Sarpanch Tirlok Singh had gone to the Office of Sub Registrar. No evidence was led to show if the defendant was served with any notice to execute the sale deed, prior to the institution of the suit. Further, the agreement Ex.P4 was scribed on an under stamped paper of Rs.25 whereas it ought to have been executed on a stamp paper of Rs.300. The said agreement consist of two pages and the first page upon which the agreement is scribed is a stamp paper of Rs.5 and a revenue ticket of Rs.20 was appended thereon. Whereas, the second page of the alleged agreement