Proof of execution of agreements and signatures as required by the Indian Evidence Act is essential for specific performance claims.

ORDER :

Rajbir Sehrawat, J.

1. This regular second appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below, whereby the suit for specific performance of an agreement, filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed. For the convenience, the parties are being referred to herein as plaintiff and the defendant; as they were described in the original suit.

2. The fact in brief, as mentioned in the judgment of the lower appellate court are; that the plaintiff/appellant herein had filed a suit for specific performance claiming that the vendor Mukesh Chand son of Roop Chand had executed an agreement to sell dated 07.05.2007 in favour of the plaintiff qua the sale of portion of his share in house No. 475/1, Ward No. 3, Mahavirpura, New Railway Road, Guru-gram, for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- and the possession of the same was also handed over to him. The entire amount of consideration was paid to the vendor. But, the vendor expired. Thereafter, the legal notice was served upon the legal heirs of the vendor Mukesh Chand. But, they refused to execute the sale deed. Accordingly the suit was filed.

3. The parties led their respective evidence. After considering the evidence on file the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the appellant/plaintiff preferred the appeal before the District Judge, Gurugram. However, the same was also dismissed by the lower appellate court. Hence the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

4. While arguing the case, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is a written agreement, in which the vendor had agreed to sell the suit property for the total consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The possession of the same was also handed over to the plaintiff. A separate receipt was also signed by the vendor; as a token of having received the entire sale consideration. The agreement, as well as the receipt, both were signed by witness Mukesh Kumar Saini. However, since no date for execution of the sale deed, as such, was fixed/therefore, since the sale deed could not be executed during life time of vendor, hence, after the vendor had expired, the plaintiff had served a legal notice upon the legal representatives of the vendor. They did not agree to that and therefore the suit was rightly filed. In the evidence, the attesting witness of the sale deed has duly been examined. Even the stamp vendor has been examined by the plaintiff in his evidence. Accordingly, the agreement as well as the receipt, both have been duly proved on record.

5. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has further submitted that he intended to examine the handwriting expert to prove the signatures of the deceased, and for that purpose he even applied for inspection of the record. Although the said application was allowed by the court below, however, the plaintiff could not produce the handwriting expert because the said witnesses was not available on the date fixed before the trial court. Hence, the plaintiff could not have been penalized on-that account.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the case file, this court does not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. Although the plaintiff has examined the attesting witness as well as the stamp vendor, however, both the courts below have found the execution of the sale deed itself to be suspicious in the circumstances of the case. It is not the case of the plaintiff even, that the agreement in question was admitted by the defendants. The vendor is no more in the world to dispute the claim of the plaintiff qua the execution of the sale deed or qua the alleged signatures on the agreement and the receipt. In such situation, the courts below have not committed any illegality in looking into the attending circumstance; to find out whether there could have been the circumstances justifying the conten