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