RSA No.319 of 2008(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.319 of 2008(O & M) Date of Decision:26.10.2010 Smt.Kanta Devi .....appellant Versus Piara Lal .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Akshay Bhan,Advocate for the appellant Mr.H.R.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgement and decrees of the Courts below , whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondent for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.01.2004 was decreed and appellant was directed to execute the sale deed. As per the averments, plaintiff-respondent filed the instant suit alleging therein that appellant agreed to sell the property in dispute for a sum of `.9,00,000/- and received a sum of `.2 lacs as earnest money and signed the agreement dated 10.01.2004 in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses. The balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed which was fixed on 10.06.2004. It was further averred that plaintiff-respondent was always ready and willing to perform RSA No.319 of 2008(O & M) 2 his part of the agreement. He also issued a notice through his counsel calling upon the appellant to execute the sale deed. Plaintiff-respondent was also present in the Office of Sub-Registrar with the balance sale consideration and the expenses for execution of the sale deed. However, the appellant refused to do so. Hence the suit. In the written statement, appellant denied to have executed the agreement of sale in question. She also denied to have received the earnest money. It was further replied that she was also present in the office of Sub-Registrar on 10.06.2004. Receipt of notice was admitted. In the replication, plaintiff-respondent reiterated his case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit. First appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court. It may also be noticed that before the Lower Appellate Court the appellant had argued that the agreement to sell in question was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the plaintiff-respondent was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. However, on appraisal of evidence, both the arguments raised by the appellant were rejected and the findings of the trial Court were upheld. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any defect in the findings recorded by the courts below regarding execution of agreement to sell in question and willingness and readiness of the plaintiff-respondent to perform his part of the contract. Moreover, sale deed of the property in dispute has already been executed in favour of the respondent,which has rendered this appeal infructuous and meaningless. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this appeal. RSA No.319 of 2008(O & M) 3 No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 26.10.2010 neenu