R.S.A. No.2955 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.2955 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:16.09.2011 Jaswinder Singh ......Appellant Versus Rachhpal Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Having kept the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh Versus Harnam Singh and another 2008(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, into focus, now the short and significant question, though important that arises for determination is, as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in the instant regular second appeal, so as to invoke the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 100 C.P.C. or not. 2. The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record is that, Jaswinder Singh son of Jaimal Singh-appellant-plaintiff(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against Rachhpal Singh and others-respondent- defendants(for brevity “the defendants”) for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 05.06.1996, with respect to the land in dispute, inter alia, pleading that defendant Nos.1 to 5 agreed to sell their land to him and executed a contract of sale dated 05.06.1996(Ex.P1). According to the plaintiff that, he always remained and is still ready to perform his part of the contract, but defendant Nos.1 to 5 have illegally suffered a decree in favour of R.S.A. No.2955 of 2011(O&M) 2 defendant No.6, for possession by way of specific performance of another agreement to sell. In this manner, they have refused to perform their part of the indicated contract with the plaintiff. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell against the defendants in the manner depicted hereinabove. 3. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed their joint written statement, wherein agreements to sell were admitted. The factum of civil suit filed by defendant No.6 on the basis of agreement to sell dated 14.12.1996 was also admitted. However, defendant No.6 filed the separate written statement, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, limitation, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. He has denied the execution of agreement to sell dated 05.06.1996 in favour of the plaintiff, which was claimed to be a fabricated document, created in collusion with the scribe and witnesses in the back date, in order to frustrate the decree in his(defendant No.6) favour. According to him, in fact they(defendant Nos.1 to 5) had executed an agreement to sell in his favour on 14.12.1996 and since, they(defendant Nos.1 to 5) did not perform their part of the contract, so, he filed the suit for possession way of specific performance of the agreement and the suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.2001. The appeal filed by the defendants was also dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 28.09.2001. Defendant No.6 has also taken the plea of bonafide purchaser. Similarly, defendant No.7 in his separate written statement maintained that defendant Nos.1 to 5 also sold the suit land to him vide sale-deed dated 18.03.1998 and he is a bonafide purchaser for consideration and without notice. It will not be out of place to mention here that contesting defendant Nos.6 and 7 have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the essential issues for proper adjudication of the case. R.S.A. No.2955 of 2011(O&M) 3 5. The parties to the lis, in order to substantiate their respective pleas, brought on record oral as well as the documentary evidence. 6. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record by the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 21.03.2006. 7. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 05.05.2010. 8. The appellant-plaintiff still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees and preferred the present regular second appeal. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this regard. 10. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the execution of the agreement to sell(Ex.P1) executed by defendant Nos.1 to 5 in favour of the plaintiff, is duly proved, so, the Courts below committed a legal mistake in dismissing his(plaintiff) suit, sans merit. 11. As is evident from the record that, having completed all the codal formalities and considering the entire evidence produced on record by the parties in the right perspective, the trial Court has rightly negatived the claim of the plaintiff and ignored the agreement to sell(Ex.P1) as a fabricated document, by virtue of judgment and decree dated 21.03.2006, which in substance is as under:- “In the light of my discussion given above, I am ample clear that no legal and valid document Ex.P1 was scribed between the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 5, whereas, the said agreement to sell Ex.P1 was scribed just to defraud or defeat the right of the defendant No.6 in the suit land which accrued in his favour vide Ex.D1, which was passed in pursuance of Ex.D6 and Ex.D10. It has also been proved without any doubt by the defendant No.6 that the plaintiff, defendants No.1 to 5 and 7 are all hand-in-gloves with each other as it was during the pendency of the R.S.A. No.2955 of 2011(O&M) 4 civil suit No.37 that the defendants No.1 to 5 executed sale deed Ex.D6 in favour of the defendant No.7 which was intentionally not proved on the file by the plaintiff, although, the original was placed on the file. Therefore, I have no hitch to hold that on 5.6.1996 no legal and valid agreement Ex.P1 was scribed/executed and it being sham and vague document the same was prepared just to defeat the right of the defendant No.6, so it does carry no value in the eyes of law. Issue, therefore, stand decided in favour of the defendant No.6 and against the plaintiff and other defendants i.e. 1 to 5 and 7.” 12. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was affirmed by the first Appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 05.05.2010. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned judgments and decrees are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant connection. 14. Moreover, the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective and having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, have recorded the above-mentioned concurrent findings of fact. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under Section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, so as to take a contrary view, than that of the well-reasoned decision/impugned judgments and decrees. 15. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, to assail the impugned judgments and decrees. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on his behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. R.S.A. No.2955 of 2011(O&M) 5 16. Sequelly, the entire matter revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since, no question of law, much less substantial is involved, so, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and decrees, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmir Singh's case(supra) in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 17. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 18. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. September 16, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE R.S.A. No.2955 of 2011(O&M) 6 C.M.Nos.8180-81-C of 2011 in R.S.A. No.2955 of 2011 Present: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant. **** There is a delay of 2 days' in filing and 230 days' in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, which are supported by the affidavits, the delay of 2 days in filing and 230 days in re-filing the appeal, is hereby condoned. Civil Misc. applications stand disposed of accordingly. September 16, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE