Regular Second Appeal No.3770 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3770 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.7.2011 Kulwant Singh ...Appellant Versus Ajit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Ashwani Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr.Rajnish Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having completed all the codal formalities, the suit filed by Kulwant Singh son of Mahain Singh appellant-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) against Ajit Singh son of Thakar Singh respondent-defendant (for short “the defendant”), seeking a decree for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement dated 26.5.1987 (Ex.P1), was dismissed by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 17.5.2002. 2. Felt aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 1.10.2008. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the appellant-plaintiff filed the instant regular second appeal. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present appeal. 5. What is not disputed here is that the plaintiff filed the suit for Regular Second Appeal No.3770 of 2008 (O&M) -2- possession by way of specific performance of agreement (Ex.P1). After taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the trial Court has recorded the finding of fact that agreement to sell (Ex.P1) is not a genuine and valid, but forged and fabricated document and negatived the claim of the plaintiff, by virtue of impugned judgment, which, in substance, is (paras 41 and 42) as under:- “So in view of my above discussion, it is opined that the agreement to sell Ex.P1 is not a valid document executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and is a forged and fabricated document. Though PW Kartar Singh, scribe, PW2 Puran Singh and PW3 Pritam Singh, Lambardar and PW6 Kulwant Singh, plaintiff have tried their level best to prove the execution of the agreement to sell Ex.P1. But in view of my above discussion and the attending circumstances pertaining to the execution of the agreement go to prove that agreement was not executed by the defendant but was forged and fabricated by the plaintiff in collusion with the marginal witnesses and the scribe. Besides this, it is opined that the agreement to sell Ex.P1 is a vague and indefinite contract which is not capable of performance. No sale consideration was settled between the parties. Even the plea of the plaintiff that the sale consideration was to be settled at the rate he sold his land to third party seems improbable and untrustworthy as he did not inform or associate the defendant prior to the execution of agreement Ex.P12 or the sale deeds Ex.P2 to Ex.P4. Thus under Section 29 of the Contract Act, such agreement cannot be enforced. Accordingly, issue nos.1,2 and 3 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.” 6. Not only that, while affirming the decision of the trial Court, the first appellate Court has also observed in the impugned judgment dated 1.10.2008 (para 32) as under:- “On the other hand the defendant has fully proved that the agreement to sell Ex.P1 is not genuine and it is a forged, fabricated document in connivance of marginal witnesses and of the subscribe. On this point the lower court has given the detail reasons by ignoring the document Ex.P1, which is not inforcible being unascertained. Secondly, the document Ex.P1 was not subscribed by regular deed writer while other documents executed by plaintiff were subscribed by regular deed writers Narinder Pal, Nanak Chand and Jagdish Mittal at Qadian. As such Ex.P1 which was Regular Second Appeal No.3770 of 2008 (O&M) -3- subscribed by PW1 Kartar Singh is not genuine because Kartar Singh was associated by plaintiff only for purpose of forgering and fabricating Ex.P1, as such the testimony of the other PWs produced by plaintiff is also not plausible and acceptable and genuine because there are material contradictions in their statements.” 7. The learned counsel for the appellant did not point out as to how and in what manner, the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and illegal. Moreover, the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the legal position, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has recorded the above- mentioned concurrent findings of fact. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this respect. 8. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to assail the findings of the Courts below in this regard. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant, in this relevant direction, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 9. In this manner, the entire matter revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR Regular Second Appeal No.3770 of 2008 (O&M) -4- (SC) 1749 in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 21.7.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No