***

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (ORAL) –

1. In this Regular Second Appeal, the defendant assails the correctness of the First Appellate Court’s judgment, which has modified the judgment of the trial court.

2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, some relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

3. The appellant-Smt.Parampal Kaur filed a suit (defendant in a civil suit filed by the plaintiff-Kuldip Singh, respondent herein) for possession by way of the specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.01.2006. On 21.01.2006 Smt.Parampal Kaur executed an agreement to sell with respect to 2 kanals 14 marlas land on receipt of Rs.20,000/- as earnest money out of the total sale consideration of Rs.65,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. It was recited in the said agreement that the possession has been delivered to the plaintiff. It was agreed that the sale deed would be executed on 21.01.2007. The plaintiff claims that the 21st and 22nd January, 2007 were holidays whereas 23rd to 29th January, 2007 were not the days when registration of the sale deed would possibly as take place as the Registrar visits the area on certain pre-fixed days. He visited the office of the Registrar on 30.01.2007 but defendant never came forward. He got his attendance verified and filed the suit on 02.03.2007. While contesting the suit, the defendant claimed that though the agreement to sell has been signed on receipt of the earnest money and in fact, her family is involved in litigation with one Sh.Suraj Jindal, the plaintiff being leader of the Congress party assured protection and help in the litigation and in that pretext, he got her signatures on various papers. She also claimed that price of the land is not less than Rs.15 lacs per acre. Upon appreciation of evidence, both the courts held that execution of the agreement to sell is proved and the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In this respect, both the courts relied upon the testimony of the plaintiff, marginal witness Beant Singh and the scribe Karanjit Singh. The trial court granted alternative relief of recovery of the amount on the ground that the agreement to sell has not been registered. The plaintiff filed first appeal against judgment of the trial court. However, the defendant-appellant neither filed appeal nor cross objection. Upon appreciation of evidence, the First Appellate Court concurred with the trial court’s findings with regard to the execution of the agreement to sell and the plaintiff being always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, the First Appellate Court held that for the purpose of filing the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell, the registration of the agreement to sell is not necessary as the amendment in Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 is in the context of the suit filed under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and not in the context of the suit for specific performance. In fact, this aspect was considered by a larger Bench in Ram Kishan and another vs. Bijender Mann alias Vijender Mann and others 2013 (20 RCR (Civil) 419.

4. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.

5. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the plaintiff had claimed in the plaint that the possession has been delivered to him, which was also reiterated in his testimony. However, he all of sudden changed his stand and sought the relief of possession. He further submits that the courts have overlooked that the signature of the appellant were taken at her house. In the end, he submitted that registration of the agreement to sell was necessary to enforce the relief of specific performance.

6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the parties.

7. With regard to the first argument, the learned counsel representing the appellant is factually incorrect. The plaintiff, while filing the suit, has sought the relief of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. Additionally, this aspect does not has any impact on the merits of the case. The appellant is a Headmistress. She is not expected to blindly sign the blank papers. Moreover, she has also signed in the register of the scribe, while acknowledging the agreement to sell. With reference to the last submission, the matter has been concluded against the appellant by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Kishan’s case (supra). Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in R.Hemlatha vs. Kashthuri (CA-2535-2023 decided on 10.04.2023)

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere is made out.

9. Hence, dismissed.

10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.

Petition dismissed.

********