Suit for Specific PerformaThe question of there being signatures on the endorsement would only arise, if there had been any agreement. If there was no agreement, there would be no endorsement. nce – Logic Point = Non denial of endorsement -The question of there being signatures on the endorsement would only arise, if there had been any agreement. If there was no agreement, there would be no endorsement. = The dispute raised by the defendant was that he and the plaintiff had business dealings in the past. Due to these business dealings, he had given signed blank papers to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had used some of the signed blank papers to create and forge the agreement. Reliance was also placed on certain similar agreements executed earlier which had been cancelled. The case of the defendant, as setup, was that his signatures both on the agreement and the endorsement were from blank papers. However, when the defendant stepped into the witness box, he made a statement that his signature on the agreement to sell [Exhibit P1] had been obtained on a blank paper but there was no such statement made with regard to endorsement extending the date to 17.08.1999 [Exhibit P2]. The Trial Court disbelieved the defendant and decreed the suit for specific performance. The First Appellate Court found that there was some gap between the body of the agreement and the place where the signature had been affixed to come to the conclusion that the signature may be on blank papers and allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The Second Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the First Appellate Court had completely ignored the signatures on the endorsement and therefore allowed the appeal and restored the judgment of the Trial Court. The question of there being signatures on the endorsement would only arise, if there had been any agreement. If there was no agreement, there would be no endorsement. The other questions raised are only questions of facts.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No(s). 7490/2008
GURCHARAN SINGH & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ASHWANI KUMAR Respondent(s)
O R D E R
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated
03.09.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
in RSA No. 1341 of 2007; whereby the High Court allowed
the second appeal filed by the plaintiff and decreed the
suit for specific performance.
The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal
are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific
performance on 17.06.1998 wherein it was alleged that the
defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff
for a sum of Rs.1,30,375/-. It was further stated that a
sum of Rs.1,15,000/- was paid at the time of agreement.
The sale deed in terms of the agreement to sell was to be
executed on or before 17.06.1999, on which date on the
reverse of the agreement to sell, a further endorsement
was made extending the time for execution of the sale
deed to 17.08.1999.
The dispute raised by the defendant was that he and
the plaintiff had business dealings in the past. Due to
these business dealings, he had given signed blank papers
1

to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had used some of the
signed blank papers to create and forge the agreement.
Reliance was also placed on certain similar agreements
executed earlier which had been cancelled. The case of
the defendant, as setup, was that his signatures both on
the agreement and the endorsement were from blank papers.
However, when the defendant stepped into the witness box,
he made a statement that his signature on the agreement
to sell [Exhibit P1] had been obtained on a blank paper
but there was no such statement made with regard to
endorsement extending the date to 17.08.1999 [Exhibit
P2].
The Trial Court disbelieved the defendant and decreed
the suit for specific performance. The First Appellate
Court found that there was some gap between the body of
the agreement and the place where the signature had been
affixed to come to the conclusion that the signature may
be on blank papers and allowed the appeal and dismissed
the suit. The Second Appellate Court came to the
conclusion that the First Appellate Court had completely
ignored the signatures on the endorsement and therefore
allowed the appeal and restored the judgment of the Trial
Court. The question of there being signatures on the
endorsement would only arise, if there had been any
agreement. If there was no agreement, there would be no
endorsement. The other questions raised are only
questions of facts.
2

We find no merit in the present appeal. The civil
appeal is accordingly dismissed.
� ………………..J.
[DEEPAK GUPTA]
� ………………..J.
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE]
NEW DELHI;
August 7, 2019.
3

ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.13 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 7490/2008
GURCHARAN SINGH & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ASHWANI KUMAR Respondent(s)

Date : 07-08-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
For Appellant(s) Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv.
Mr. Aniket Jain, Adv.
Mr. Ugra Shankar Prasad, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Anand Padmanatan, Adv.
Mr. Azim H. Laskar, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Das, Adv.
Ms. Ekta Rani, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR

     UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                         O R D E R

The civil appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (RENU KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed order is placed on the file]
4