RSA No.1978 of 2007 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1978 of 2007 (O & M) Date of decision: 25.05.2010 Sunam Chand .. Appellant Versus Nanak Chand .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20.01.1997 whereby the appellant agreed to sell 20 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land to the respondent @ Rs.80,000/- per acre. The date fixed for execution of the sale deed was 20.08.1997. On that date, the respondent appeared before the Tehsildar but the appellant did not appear and hence the suit. The plea of the appellant, on the other hand, was that the respondent was a Commission Agent and that the appellant had regular dealings with him. It was further averred that during the course of the transactions between the parties, the respondent could have very easily obtained thumb-impression of the appellant on some blank papers and then misused the same to create this forged and fictitious agreement to sell. Both the Courts below on fact found that the appellant had indeed RSA No.1978 of 2007 (O & M) ::2:: executed the agreement to sell after understanding the same and he had not been able to prove that the respondent had misused the blank papers with thumb-impression of the appellant. The following questions have been proposed:- (1.) Whether present is a case of Nonest Factum and undue influence being exerted by the respondent ? (2.) Whether there exists element of fraud and agreement to sell is void ? (3.) Whether once there was a transaction with respect to commission agency/money transaction then the suit for specific performance can be decreed when it is a especially money transaction pertaining to rendition of account ? (4.) Whether there exists mis-reading, mis-construing, mis-interpretation of evidence and pleadings ? It would be seen that the proposed questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has argued that apart from these questions on fact, it is highly unlikely that a person would sell his entire land holding as well as his residential house for a paltry amount of Rs.2,10,000/- in the year 1997. However, learned counsel for respondent has argued that just four months after the agreement to sell in favour of the respondent vide sale deed dated 12.05.1997, the appellant sold some other land @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and the fact of this sale would go to express the hollowness of the claim that the property was sold for a pittance. In my opinion, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to establish that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions RSA No.1978 of 2007 (O & M) ::3:: from the respondent, has stated that even though the respondent is entitled to get the sale deed executed of the entire property yet in an attempt to bring about an end to this litigation he unilaterally offers that he would not insist on the execution of sale deed of 16 Marlas land where the appellant has constructed his house. In the circumstances, the impugned judgments and decrees are upheld and it is declared that the appellant would have to execute a sale deed only of 20 Kanals of land. With this modification, this appeal is dismissed. Since the main appeal has been decided, the civil miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. May 25, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE