The admission of a party regarding the execution of an agreement, along with supporting evidence, can be crucial in establishing the validity of the agreement.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral) - In the present Regular Second Appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 01.03.2018 by which, the suit filed the respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 06.03.2009 has been allowed as well as the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019 of the lower Appellate Court by which the appeal preferred by appellant-defendant has been dismissed.

2. The challenge to the judgments and decree of the Courts below is on the ground that there was no agreement to sell, which was entered by Mukand Singh-appellant (since died), hence, the execution of the same does not arise and the said agreement to sell in question has not been proved beyond shadow, hence, the judgment and decree of the trial Court holding that the respondent-plaintiff has been able to prove the execution of the agreement and was ready to perform her part, has wrongly been allowed, hence, judgment and decree of the trial Court is liable to be set aside along with the judgment dated 01.03.2018 of the lower Appellate Court by which the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant has been dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2019.

3. On the basis of the evidence, which had come on record, the trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court have recorded a finding that the agreement to sell dated 06.03.2009 has been proved.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the deed writer was not produced so as to ascertain the genuinity of the said agreement. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent-plaintiff Kawaljeet Kaur had never stepped into the witness box to present her case and only her father being the power of attorney appeared and recorded his statement, which statement could not have been taken into account to record the finding qua the readiness of the plaintiff to perform her part in the agreement to sell.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that in the present case as the plaintiff never stepped into the witness box, hence, any knowledge which the principle has, cannot be disposed by the attorney keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.147-148 of 2001 titled as Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs vs. Hartar Singh Sangha, decided on 05.10.2010.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

7. Once the appellant himself has conceded in his testimony that the money was received in terms of the agreement to sell in question as well as signature on the said agreement were of his father, merely that the deed writer was not produced, will not hamper the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.

8. In respect of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent-plaintiff did not stepped into the witness box, is not also applicable to appellant for the reason that on the day of the execution, the power of attorney had appeared and got signed the register of the Tehsildar concerned showing the factum of readiness to execute. It cannot be said that once the power of attorney had appeared on behalf of the plaintiff before the authorities concerned to show the readiness and filed an affidavit, argument of the learned counsel that facts stated in the plaint were not to the knowledge of the attorney cannot be accepted. Facts in the present case are entirely different that in Man Kaur's case (supra), hence, the law being relied by the learned counsel for the appellant in Man Kaur's case (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the the statement of prosecution witness No.1, who is stated to be the witness to the agreement to sell in question that there are discrepancies in his statement, which proves that the agreement dated 06.03.2009 was never signed by the father of the appellant, hence, the finding recorded by the trial Court qua the v