Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 769
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Sukhdev Singh – Appellant
Versus
Manish Agarwal & Ors. – Respondents
RSA NO.5792 of 2019(O&M)
Decided On : 30-01-2024
Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Gautam, Advocate; For the Appellant(in RSA-566 of 2020), for Respondent no.2((in RSA-5792 of 2019).
Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent no.1 (in RSA-5792 of 2019 and RSA-566-2020).
Mr. Atul Aggarwal, Advocate; For the Appellant(in RSA-5792 of 2019) for Respondent-Sukhdev Singh (In RSA-566-2020).
The reliance on inadmissible evidence and photocopies of documents in civil suits undermines the validity of claims, necessitating original documents for establishing authenticity.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 33 - Punjab Courts Act, 1918 - Section 41 - Specific performance of agreement to sell - The court examined the admissibility of witness statements from prior proceedings and the relevance of evidence in civil suits. The plaintiff's claims were based on photocopies of documents, which were deemed inadmissible. The court found that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on irrelevant evidence, leading to a dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. (Paras 1, 2, 12, 28)
(B) Evidence - Re-appreciation of evidence - The court emphasized that in second appeals, it is permissible to re-appreciate evidence if the findings are based on inadmissible evidence or misapplication of legal principles. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the authenticity of the documents and the claims made. (Paras 12, 28)
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, two connected second appeals arising from the plaintiff's (respondent's) suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell passed by the courts below shall stand disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In the considered opinion of the Court, the following two issues arise for consideration:-
(1) Whether the statement of witness in judicial proceedings, which does not fall within the scope of section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is a relevant piece of evidence in subsequent suit or judicial proceedings?
(2) If the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts are based on inadmissible and irrelevant evidence resulting in perversity, whether in second appeal filed under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, the High Court is debarred from re-appreciating the evidence?
3. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
Facts
4. Respondent-Munish Aggarwal (plaintiff) filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell while claiming that on 06.10.2005, defendant no.2-Smt. Ranjit Kaur and Sh. Kulwant Singh, the brother of defendant no.1 showed him the suit property for the purpose of selling. He while agreeing to purchase, paid Rs.1,50,000/- as token money and its receipt was reduced into writing. The suit property is jointly owned by Sh. Jaswant Singh and his mother Smt. Ranjit Kaur. It is his case that on 26.10.2005, defendants no.1 and 2 entered into a proper agreement to sell on receipt of additional payment of Rs.28,50,000/-. Wherein it was provided that another payment of Rs.20,00,000/- shall be payable on or before 25.04.2006, whereas the remaining amount shall be paid on 26.10.2006, the date of execution and registration of the sale deed. On 23.04.2006, he approached defendant nos.1 and 2 for payment of second instalment, however, they refused to receive the same. On 25.04.2006, he went to the office of Tehsildar and after waiting for the defendants no.1 and 2, got his presence marked but the defendants no.1 and 2 failed to come. Defendants no.1 and 2 in a pre planned conspiracy made a telephone call and asked him to come for payment of additional amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to their house. When he along with his brother and Sh. Sat Pal went to the house of defendants no.1 and 2, along with the amount, the same was received by the defendant no.1. Thereafter, the endorsement at the back of the first page was signed by defendant no.1. The document (agreement to sell ) was taken to another room by defendant no.1 for getting the thumb impression of Smt. Ranjit Kaur, who was allegedly feeling shy and therefor appended her thumb impressions in another room. After some time, the document was returned to the plaintiff but the same was allegedly a fake and forged document. He immediately went to the nearest Police Station and lodged FIR No.199, dated 23.06.2006. On 26.10.2006, once again he visited the office of the Sub-Registrar along with the balance sale consideration, however, defendants no.1 and 2 did not turn up. On 18.06.2007, the plaintiff filed the suit. During the pendency of the suit, defendants no.1 and 2 sold the property in favour of defendant no.5 by executing two different sale deeds.
5. The defendants while contesting the suit claimed that on 06.10.2005, neither any receipt was executed, nor any agreement to sell was executed and signed on 26.10.2005. They also vehemently denied the alleged incident of 23.06.2006 and claimed that there was no transaction between defendants and the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined the following witnesses:-
(1) PW1-Pawan Kumar, marginal witness of receipt dated 06.10.2005,
(2) PW2-Satpal, marginal witness of the agreement to sell as well as the endorsement dated 04.04.2006,
(3) PW3-Munish Aggarwal, the plaintiff and
(4)
