IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4230 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 6, 2011. Smt. Saroj Rani and another. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Balkar Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 12.04.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Muktsar vide which appeal filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 06.12.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Malout was accepted. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, respondent no.1-plaintiff filed a suit for decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated RSA No.4230 of 2010 10.03.2000 allegedly executed by Mathura Dass, who expired during the pendency of proceedings, in favour of respondent no.1-plaintiff, Balkar Singh. The present appellant has denied execution of agreement to sell dated 10.03.2000. Even defendant No.2/respondent No.3 i.e. daughter of Mathura Dass has also denied the execution of said agreement. In order to prove execution of agreement, respondent no.1/plaintiff examined Arjun Singh, Deed Writer who appeared as PW2 and deposed regarding scribing of the agreement at the instance of Mathura Dass in favour of plaintiff. He has also produced and proved his register maintained in due course with respect to the scribing of the agreement. Respondent no.1/plaintiff also examined an attesting witness namely, Lakhwinder Singh, whose statement further finds corroboration from the statement of plaintiff. Present appellants are transferees during pendency of the present suit. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned courts below that if any property sold during pendency of the proceedings the doctrine of lis-pendens comes into picture and they cannot take the plea of bonafide purchaser. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the suit was not filed during lifetime of Mathura Dass and that he used to sign in Urdu language and did not used to thumb mark any document. However, the onus to prove the said fact that the agreement is result of forgery was upon appellants-defendants or their vendors and however, nothing has come on the record that the agreement allegedly executed by Mathura Dass in favour of respondent no.1/plaintiff is a result of forgery. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments 2 RSA No.4230 of 2010 and decrees. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 6, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3