R.S.A.No.3625 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. Nos.10768-69-C of 2008 and R.S.A.No.3625 of 2008 Date of Decision:12.11.2008 Surender and others .....Appellants. versus Juli Goel ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr. Ramesh Chahal, Advocate for the appellants. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This regular second appeal filed by the legal heirs of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2008 passed by the District Judge, Jind affirming that of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narwana, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22.2.2001, was decreed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22.2.2001 in respect of the land measuring 16 kanals 11 marlas out of the total land measuring 66 kanals 5 marlas comprised in khewat/khata No. 580/726 situated in village Ujhana, Tehsil Narwana (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”). It was pleaded that the R.S.A.No.3625 of 2008 -2- defendants along with their mother, Smt. Jehro, were owners of the suit land and after the death of Smt. Jehro, they became the owners of her share also. It was further pleaded that the defendants and their mother agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 22.2.2001 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,30,000/- and received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.6.2001 on receipt of the balance amount of the sale consideration. According to the plaintiff, Smt. Jehro died on 22.2.2001 after execution of the agreement to sell and, therefore, mutation of inheritance of Smt. Jehro could not be sanctioned upto 15.6.2001. Resultantly, the date of execution of the sale deed was extended upto 25.6.2001 mutually by the parties. According to the plaintiff, she was ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement but the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract and even the legal notice served for the purpose through registered AD also failed to evoke any positive response. The stand of the plaintiff was controverted by the defendants by filing a joint written statement and raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the defendants neither executed any agreement to sell nor received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-as earnest money from the plaintiff, as alleged by her. It was further pleaded that Jaili Ram, father-in-law of the plaintiff, wanted the suit land to be sold to him but had desired to get the sale deed executed in the name of some other person of his choice to whom the defendants never wanted to sell their land. Therefore, the stamp papers purchased for the purpose became redundant and refund of the same R.S.A.No.3625 of 2008 -3- was taken. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. The trial Court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties held that the defendants including their mother appended thumb impressions on the agreement to sell executed in favour of the plaintiff and received Rs.2,00,000/- as earnest money. The trial court further held that the plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and held her entitled to a decree for possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of the agreement. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 21.8.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the defendants were directed to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance amount of sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- within a period of two months from the date of decree. The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendants and the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 14.6.2008 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant made efforts to persuade this Court to come to a different conclusion than that of the Courts below but could not show any material on the basis of which it could be held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below suffer from any mis-reading or mis-appreciation of evidence which may warrant interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. The Courts below on the basis of the evidence available on record had R.S.A.No.3625 of 2008 -4- recorded the concurrent findings of fact that the defendants including their mother entered into the agreement to sell (Ex.P2) in favour of the plaintiff on 22.2.2001 and accepted Rs.2,00,000/- as earnest money and also that the plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract whereas the defendants had failed to support their stand by leading any evidence despite availing of several opportunities for the purpose. No question of law much less the substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. There is a delay of 12 days in refiling and 2 days in filing the appeal. Two applications for condonation of the delay have been filed. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merit, no separate order is being passed in these applications and the same are disposed of as such. November 12, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE