IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 115 RSA-611-2022 Date of Decision.:21.04.2025 Smt. Munesh …..Appellant Vs. Rajender .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract filed by plain"ff Rajender (respondent herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 22.11.2016 and the findings have been affirmed by the first Appellate Court by way of judgment dated 13.08.2021, while dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant Smt. Munesh (appellant herein). 2. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel that agreement to sell dated 10.10.2011 was based on fraud inasmuch as defendant- appellant had agreed to sell the suit property for considera"on of ₹18,00,000/-; that no amount was paid to her and that plain"ff fraudulently incorporated the amount of ₹14,84,000/- in the agreement by showing that this en"re amount had been paid. 3. The Courts below have disbelieved the en"re stand of the defendant- appellant. It has been found that defendant Smt. Munesh had herself purchased the stamp paper from PW-5 Bhoop Singh and had signed the endorsement in this regard in English. It was further found that agreement to sell was proved by the tes"mony of one of the a9es"ng NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.22 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-611-2022 -2- witnesses namely PW-2 Ashok Kumar and in the said sale deed, sale considera"on is men"oned to be ₹14,84,000/- which was duly paid to the defendant- appellant. The said agreement was found to be notorised by PW-3 Radhey Shayam Sharma, who also proved the agreement. Not only this, the Courts below further found that defendant not only duly admi9ed her signature on the agreement to sell, even the endorsement regarding receipt of sale considera"on of ₹14,84,000/- was found to be duly proved. The tes"mony of DW2 Ajit & DW3 Prahlad Singh has been rightly disbelieved qua sale considera"on, as the same are found to be contrary to s"pula"on in the agreement and so, rightly ignored in view of Sec"on 92 of the Evidence Act. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when the agreement to sell executed by the defendant, the receipt of en"re sale considera"on; the fact that agreement to sell was duly notarized; the readiness and willingness on the part of plain"ff to perform his part of contract, are duly proved as has been found by the Courts below, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper apprecia"on of evidence. Consequently, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, same is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 21, 2025 Nee"ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.22 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document