Regular Second Appeal No.3146 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3146 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.08.2009 Mohna son of Faquir son of Umra, r/o village Kalru, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. ..... Appellant. Versus Malkiat Singh son of S. Munsha Singh son of S. Wasawa Singh r/o village Jangla (Tibba) Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. ..... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:- Mr. Pranabh Rai,Advocate for the appellant. Sham Sunder, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sultanpur Lodhi, vide which it decreed the suit of the plaintiff (now respondent) for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- and the judgment Regular Second Appeal No.3146 of 2009 -2- and decree dated 09.09.2008, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Kapurthala, vide which it dismissed the appeal by modifying the rate of interest from 12% to 6% per annum. 2. The defendant (now appellant) executed an agreement to sell dated 22.06.2000, in respect of the land, in dispute, in favour of the plaintiff (now respondent), at the rate of 2,50,000/- per acre. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, as earnest money, was paid by the plaintiff, to the defendant, at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. It was stated that the possession of the property, in dispute, was to be delivered at the time of execution of the sale deed on or before 20.05.2003. It was further stated that the plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his own part of the contract. It was further stated that the defendant was requested to deliver the possession of the land, in dispute, to the plaintiff as also execute the sale deed, after getting the conveyance deed, in respect of the same, from the Government, from which he had purchased it. It was further stated that the defendant did not deposit the balance amount of auction money, and , as such, the conveyance deed could not be issued in his favour. It was further stated that, as such, the title of the defendant, was defective. It was further stated that the Regular Second Appeal No.3146 of 2009 -3- defendant was many a time,asked to return the earnest money alongwith interest, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for recovery was filed. 3. The defendant, put in appearance, and contested the suit, by way of filing written statement, wherein, it was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable; that the plaintiff had neither locus standi nor cause of action to file the suit; that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit, by his own act and conduct; that the plaintiff had not come to the Court with clean hands; and that the suit was barred by limitation. It was denied that the agreement to sell was executed, in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the land, in dispute. It was denied that the defendant took a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money, from the plaintiff. It was stated that the agreement to sell was a forged and fabricated document. It was further stated that a sum of Rs.22,000/- was borrowed by the defendant, from Munsha Singh, father of the plaintiff. At that time, Munsha Singh, father of the plaintiff, also obtained his thumb impressions, on blank form and register in order to secure the repayment of loan amount. It was further stated that the said document was converted into an agreement to sell. It was further stated that earlier Munsha Regular Second Appeal No.3146 of 2009 -4- Singh, father of the plaintiff, prepared a false pronote and receipt in the sum of Rs.60,000/- and filed a suit, on the basis thereof, which was decided in his favour of the defendant. The remaining averments, contained in the plaint, were denied, being wrong. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues, were framed by the trial Court :- “1- Whether the defendant agreed to alienate the property mentioned in the head note of the plaint to the plaintiff, vide agreement to sell dated 22.06.2000? OPP 2- If issue no.1 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.1.00 lac alongwith interest as prayed for ?OPP 3- Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?OPD 4- Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and cause of action to file the present suit ?OPD 5- Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct, omissions and commissions to file the present suit ?OPD Regular Second Appeal No.3146 of 2009 -5- 6- Whether agreement in dispute is false and fabricated document and is result of fraud ?OPD 7- Whether the suit is within limitation ?OPD 8- Relief.” 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the trial Court decreed the suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellant/defendant, which was dismissed with modification, referred to above, by the Court of District Judge,Kapurthala, vide its judgment and decree dated 09.09.2008. 7. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed, by the appellant/defendant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Courts below were wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the agreement to sell dated 22.06.2000, in respect of the land, Regular Second Appeal No.3146 of 2009 -6- in dispute, was executed by the defendant, in favour of the plaintiff (now respondent). It was further submitted that the agreement to sell was a forged and fabricated document. It was further submitted that the Courts below, did not record a specific finding, as to whether, the thumb impressions of the defendant, were taken on blank papers or not. It was further submitted that the Courts below mis-read and mis-appreciated the evidence, as a result whereof, they recorded perverse findings, leading to the decreeing of suit, illegally. He further submitted that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the appellant, in my considered opinion,the appeal deserves to be dismissed,for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court, Regular Second Appeal No.3146 of 2009 -7- and the first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous, as the legislative intention, was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in interfering with the judgments of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. The execution of the agreement to sell dated 22.06.2000,(Ex.P1), was proved by Jaswinder Singh, Deed Writer, (PW1), who scribed the same, Gorakh Nath, Stamp Vendor,(PW-2), and Malkiat Singh son of Sohana Singh, (PW-4), an attesting witness. The Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion, that the defendant (now appellant) though set up the plea, that at the time of borrowing a loan of Rs.22,000/- from Munsha Singh, father of the plaintiff, he obtained his thumb impressions, on blank papers, which were converted into an agreement to sell, but he failed to prove the same. Certified copy of the written statement, which the defendant had filed in suit titled as 'Munsha Singh v. Mohna', for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 21.06.2000 was placed on record. In the written statement of that case, the defendant took up the plea that his signatures were obtained by Munsha Singh, Regular Second Appeal No.3146 of 2009 -8- approximately in the year 2001. Thus the Courts below were right in holding that in view of the contradictory stand taken by the defendant, in the written statement, in the earlier suit, titled as 'Munsha Singh v. Mohna', the plea of the defendant, in the present case that his thumb impressions were taken on blank papers, was proved to be false. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below that the defendant executed an agreement to sell dated 22.06.2000, in respect of the land, in dispute, in favour of the plaintiff (now respondent), and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, as earnest money, at that time; that the defendant had failed to prove that the agreement to sell, was a forged and fabricated document; that the plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his own part of the contract ; that the defendant breached the terms and conditions thereof; and that the plaintiff was entitled to the decree for recovery, being based on the correct reading and due appreciation of the evidence and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and, thus, warrant no interference of this Court. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below, are liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. Regular Second Appeal No.3146 of 2009 -9- 11. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands dismissed with costs. ( Sham Sunder ) August 27, 2009 Judge dinesh