RSA No.2724 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2724 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 23, 2011 Baljit Ram .....Appellant v. Abdul Sattar and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Krishan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.11017-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and order dated 14.9.2011 dismissing the appeal in default is recalled. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.7361-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 1 day in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.7360-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.2724 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.1.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which appeal filed by present appellant-defendant was dismissed against judgment and decree dated RSA No.2724 of 2011(O&M) -2- 18.8.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, decreeing suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28.8.2003. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28.8.2003, allegedly executed in their favour by present appellant-defendant. On notice being issued, present appellant-defendant denied the very execution of the said agreement and receipt of earnest money. In order to prove the agreement, respondents- plaintiffs examined both the attesting witnesses of the agreement, namely, Devi Dayal and Nisar Ahmad, besides the statement of respondent no.1- plaintiff Abdul Sattar. On the other hand there is only self serving statement of appellant-defendant. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties came to the conclusion that deposition of both the attesting witnesses of the agreement is reliable and hence suit filed by respondents- plaintiffs was decreed. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree by present appellant-defendant was dismissed by learned first appellate Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant that respondents-plaintiffs are money lenders and that a fraud has been committed upon him and that his signatures were obtained by way of fraud. However, appellant has failed to prove the said plea. There is no RSA No.2724 of 2011(O&M) -3- evidence except statement of appellant-defendant. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 23.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge