R.S.A.No.3993 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3993 of 2008 Date of Decision:11.12.2008 Jai Narain and others .....Appellants. versus Krishan and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for caveator-respondent No.1. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This regular second appeal filed by defendants No.1 to 6 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.11.2008 passed by the District Judge, Hisar, affirming that of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 3.10.2003, 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 3.10.2003 in respect of the land measuring 7 kanals 5 marlas being 1/4th share in the land measuring 29 kanals, fully detailed in the head-note of the plaint and situated in village Mauja Kalirawan, Tehsil Adampur, District Hisar, as per jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 R.S.A.No.3993 of 2008 -2- (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”). It was pleaded that Rai Saheb son of Siri Ram was the joint owner in possession of the suit land and he executed an agreement dated 3.10.2003 to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.65,000/- and also received a sum of Rs.30,000/- as earnest money on that very day. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 30.11.2003 after receipt of the balance amount of the sale consideration. According to the plaintiff, Rai Saheb died before execution of the sale deed and, therefore, the plaintiff met the defendants being the legal heirs of Rai Saheb to execute the sale deed, who assured that they would get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff on the stipulated date. Lateron, when the defendants came to know that 29.11.2003 and 30.11.2003 were holidays, they asked the plaintiff that they would execute the sale deed on 28.11.2003. On that date, the plaintiff went to the office of the Sub-Registrar and remained present there till office hours but the defendants did not turn up. On 1.12.2003 also, the plaintiff went to the office of the Sub-Registrar, but the defendants did not turn up. According to the plaintiff, he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract and even the legal notice served for the purpose 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 deceased Rai Saheb never executed any agreement to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.65,000/- nor received an amount of R.S.A.No.3993 of 2008 -3- Rs.30,000/- as earnest money from him, as alleged by him. It was further pleaded that there was no occasion for the deceased to execute an agreement to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.65,000/- as the price of the same at that time was not less than Rs.2.5 lacs. 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 Rai Saheb (since deceased) had executed the agreement dated 3.10.2003 to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.65,000/- and that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and, therefore, the plaintiff was 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 24.1.2008 decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the defendants were directed to execute the sale deed within a period of one month from the date of decree on receipt of the balance amount of sale consideration which was also to be paid within a period of one month 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 7.11.2008 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the caveator-respondent No.1 and have perused the impugned judgments with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellants made efforts to R.S.A.No.3993 of 2008 -4- 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 recorded the concurrent findings of fact that Rai Saheb (since deceased) entered into the agreement (Ex.P1) to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff on 3.10.2003 and accepted Rs.30,000/- as earnest money and also that the plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 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. December 11, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE