RSA No.2113 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2113 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 5, 2011 Jalifo and others .....Appellants v. Nawab Ali and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the appellants. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 30.3.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, at Jagadhri, dismissing the appeal filed by present appellants against judgment and decree dated 27.4.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs for a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 1.4.1998 was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. Briefly stated, case of respondents-plaintiffs is that agreement dated 1.4.1998 Ex.P1 was executed by deceased-Tayab, now represented by appellants no.1 to 3 in their favour and that he had received `10,000/- as earnest money and the total sale consideration was agreed as `46,250/- and the remaining amount was to be paid on or before the date fixed for execution of the sale deed, which was 1.4.1999. According to him though RSA No.2113 of 2011(O&M) -2- they were ready to perform their part of contract and ready to get the sale deed registered after paying the remaining sale consideration, however, Tyab was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and get the sale deed executed. Rather he got the sale deed executed in favour of appellants no.4 to 6 on 24.5.1999/-. Appellants-defendants no.4 to 6 have also taken the plea that they are bonafide purchasers for consideration. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that agreement dated 1.4.1998, Ex.P1 duly proved has been executed by Tyab in favour of respondents-plaintiffs and earnest money of `10,000/- was also paid to him on the same day. Beside statement of one of the plaintiffs, there is also deposition of PW2 Raj Kumar, who is scribe of the agreement to sell, PW3 Kartara Ram and PW5 Kurban Ali, both the attesting witnesses of the sale deed. The same was also later on got registered from Notary Public-cum- Advocate, namely Prem Pal Saini, who has been examined as PW1. Both the witnesses as well as one of the plaintiffs deposed that money of `10,000/- was paid in the presence of Prem Pal Saini. The only discrepancy pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants is that as per deposition of Prem Pal Saini, `10,000/- were not paid in his presence and rather he has deposed that he verified from Tyab at the time of attesting Ex.P1 about receiving of the earnest money and that he accepted having received the same at the time of execution of the agreement. As no evidence was adduced by appellants-defendants no.2 to 4 in order to prove their plea of alleged bona fide purchasers for consideration, though the sale deed was executed after execution of agreement in favour of respondents- plaintiffs, the said plea was also not rightly accepted by both the Courts below. RSA No.2113 of 2011(O&M) -3- Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the 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. 5.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge