IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4232 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.11.2010 Dhanwant Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Didar Singh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. O.P. Gabba, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell in question was decreed. The suit was resisted by the defendant-appellant on the ground that no such agreement to sell was executed by him as he had no intention to sell the suit land and in fact the plaintiff is a commission agent. The appellant used to sell the crop at his shop. The plaintiff-respondent used to advance loan and got signatures/thumb impressions on the blank stamp papers/pronote etc. in lieu of security of the loan advanced to the customers. The appellant borrowed various amount from the plaintiff. However, on 15.10.1997 accounts were settled between the defendant- appellant and the plaintiff-respondent and a writing to this effect was given by the plaintiff to him. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claim. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding that execution of the agreement to sell in question stood proved and there was no evidence to prove the assertion of the appellant RSA No.4232 of 2009 (O&M) -2- that his signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers by the plaintiff- respondent as a security to the loan amount or that he settled the account of the plaintiff-respondent. Counsel for the appellant could not point out any material evidence on the record which has been ignored by the Courts below while returning the findings against the appellant. In fact, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to challenge the findings of the Courts below before this Court. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. November 23, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE