RSA No. 1394 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1394 of 2008 Date of Decision: 25.8.2009 Paramjit Kaur and others ......Appellants Versus Paramjit Kaur .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri K.S. Hissowal, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri A.K. Khunger, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.9.2001 was decreed. One Satwant Singh entered into the agreement to sell with the plaintiff in respect of the house as described in the aforesaid agreement for a total sale consideration of Rs.80,000/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 10.12.2002, but since the sale deed was not executed, the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance on 18.12.2002. During the pendency of the suit, defendant-Satwant Singh died and his legal representatives have been impleaded to represent his estate. It RSA No. 1394 of 2008 (2) is the said legal representatives of Satwant Singh-defendant, who are in second appeal. The learned trial Court found that the agreement dated 21.9.2001 stands executed by Satwant Singh. Such finding was returned on the basis of testimony of PW1 Devinder Singh, Advocate and PW2-Dalel Singh, attesting witnesses of the agreement. The plaintiff examined herself as PW3. However, learned trial Court declined the decree for specific performance for the reason that the plaintiff has failed to establish the identity of the property, which is subject matter of agreement. It was the stand of the defendants that the property is not of defendant-Satwant Singh but is of Dera Bhai Gurdas. In view of the said finding, the trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.20,000/- i.e., double the amount of earnest money. But, in appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court were set aside. It was found that the defendants have not produced any evidence to show that the property belongs to Dera Bhai Gurdas. It was further found that neither the defendants could produce any document nor they examined any official of Dera Bhai Gurdas to prove that the property is that of Dera Bhai Gurdas and not of Satwant Singh. It has been further found that in a suit for specific performance in respect of the immovable property, the decree is rule and mere fact that the damages are contemplated to be granted as alternative relief, will not deprive the Court from granting decree for specific performance. For such proposition reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Chandra v. Angadlal and others, AIR 1979 SC 1241 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Kapoor Singh v. Surinder Singh, 1993(1) Recent Revenue Reports 567. RSA No. 1394 of 2008 (3) Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that since the property is that of a Dera Bhai Gurdas, therefore, the decreee for specific performance could not have been granted by the learned first Appellate Court. The appellants are the legal heirs of Satwant Singh, who was practicing as an Advocate. There is no evidence on the part of the defendants that the property belongs to Dera Bhai Gurdas. The first Appellate Court has returned a finding of fact that the property in dispute is not of Dera Bhai Gurdas and is that of Satwant Singh. Therefore, the plaintiff was found entitled to the decree for specific performance. I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 25-08-2009 ds