IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CM No.2006-C of 2014 in/and
RSA No.3821 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 17.02.2014
Bhola Singh —–Appellant(s)
Vs.
Leela Ram —–Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
The testimony of DW-1 could inspire confidence, if the same would have been corroborated by other evidence. At least, he should have examined some finger print expert to rebut the testimony of PW-4 Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting and Finger Print Expert. If the plaintiff had obtained his signatures fraudulently on the agreement Ex.P1, in that event, it was required for the defendant to report the matter to the police, but he had not done so. His complacence and tacitness in this regard would candidly prove the execution of agreement Ex.P1 and receipt of imprest of Rs.1,25,000/- by the appellant from the respondent. So, the learned trial Court has rightly held that agreement to sell dated 4.1.2008 has been proved on record.
Even otherwise, the stand taken by the appellant is not proved, as the agreement dated 4.1.2008 bears his signatures, whereas his own case is that the plaintiff had taken his thumb impression. Even PW-4 Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert has proved his report, according to which, the disputed signatures of the appellant on the agreement in question tally with his standard signatures. Not only this, the appellant has even denied his signatures on the vakalatnama and the written statement. Thus, the conduct of the appellant itself shows his intentions. The findings have been recorded by the Courts below on appreciation of evidence and are duly supported from the evidence on record.