JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

INDEX

1. Plaintiff is in Regular Second Appeal which has been filed under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 03.09.1993 vide which the 1^st Appellate Court had set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.12.1991 passed by the trial Court and had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 24.12.1987 with respect to the suit land.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case the trial Court, after taking into consideration all the aspects, had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance. It is further submitted that the plaintiff had duly proved the agreement to sell dated 24.12.1987 by examining both the attesting witnesses of the said agreement to sell i.e. Santokh Singh as PW2 and Dalbir Singh as PW3 and also the scribe of the said agreement to sell, Achhar Singh PW1. It is argued that even the aspect of readiness and willingness had been rightly decided by the trial Court and it was proved beyond doubt that the plaintiff was and has been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. It is submitted that the plaintiff had paid the earnest money of Rs.10,000/- and the last date for executing the sale deed was 31.10.1988 and prior to the said last date, the plaintiff/appellant had issued a notice dated 27.10.1988, clearly stating in the same that he had the balance sale consideration and was ready to execute the sale deed. It is further submitted that on 31.10.1988, the plaintiff/appellant had gone to the office of the sub-registrar and his presence was duly marked by the sub-registrar and the documents regarding the same had also been exhibited. It is further submitted that in spite of having waited there from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. along with the balance sale consideration, the defendants did not turn up and thereafter the plaintiff issued another legal notice dated 07.11.1988, which has also been duly exhibited on record.

3. It is submitted that in the month of November itself i.e. 29.11.1988, once defendant No.1 did not execute the sale deed, the plaintiff had filed the present suit in which it was specifically averred that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. It is submitted that the said aspect had been rightly considered by the trial Court but the 1^st Appellate Court, without considering any of the said aspects, had wrongly set aside the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. It is argued that the primary reason given by the 1^st Appellate Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff is to the effect that defendant No.1 had examined DW1 R.S. Bal, handwriting expert who had given the report that the signatures of the defendant No.1 on the agreement (Ex.P1) did not tally with his alleged specimen signatures on the written statement. It is argued that the said reason given is completely perverse and is on account of misreading of the evidence of DW1 and also of other evidences and the documents on record. It is submitted that the signatures on the written statement (Ex.D1) which has been filed after the plaintiff had filed the suit and was subsequent to the dispute having been raised by the plaintiff could not be taken as the standard signatures, as once defendant No.1 was aware that the plaintiff had filed a suit, defendant No.1 would make every endeavour to change his signatures. It is submitted that there were several documents which were executed prior to the filing of the suit which were available and duly exhibited on record which should have been taken as the standard signatures.

4. It is further submitted that the sale deed dated 11.06.1987 (earlier marked as Mark