-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 3638 of 2008 . IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 15, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 3638 of 2008 . Iqbal Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Smt. Rukman Devi ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.D.S. Gill, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as `the -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 3638 of 2008 . appellant') is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent') for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.11.1997 in respect of land measuring 16 Kanals executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent has been decreed to the extent that the respondent has been held entitled to recover Rs.2,60,000/-, paid as earnest money to the appellant, with proportionate costs and interest from the appellant. Notice of motion was issued in this appeal on 21.8.2009 on the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that there were chances of amicable settlement of the dispute. On 18.11.2009, this Court ordered that the parties should remain present in the Court on the date fixed i.e 16.2.2010. Thereafter, the matter had to be adjourned for one reason or the other. On 8.12.2010, when the appellant did not come present in spite of the direction of this Court in this regard and the respondent appeared in Court, the appellant was burdened with costs of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the respondent. The said amount of costs has since been paid. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The appellant being owner of land measuring 16 Kanals, as described in the head note of the plaint, had agreed to sell the same to the respondent at the rate of Rs.1,40,000/- per -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 3638 of 2008 . killa as per agreement to sell dated 19.11.1997. The appellant had received Rs.2,60,000/- from the respondent as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed by the appellant in favour of the defendant on or before 27.11.1997 on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- from the respondent. However, the appellant did not turn up in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar concerned on the stipulated date when the sale deed was to be executed by him in favour of the appellant. The respondent, who was present in the office of the Sub Registrar along with the balance sale consideration, got her presence marked there to show that she had always been ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement. The appellant did not get the sale deed registered in favour of the respondent thereafter even on her repeated requests in this regard. The appellant admitted having executed the agreement in question in favour of the respondent, but denied that he had received Rs.2,60,000/- as earnest money from the respondent. On the contrary, the appellant took the stand that only Rs.1,000/- had been received by him from the respondent as taken of earnest money. Amarjit Singh (P.W.2) is the attesting witness of the agreement in question. He stated that the appellant had received an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- from the respondent as earnest money. He further stated that the appellant, after admitting the contents of the agreement to be correct, had received the -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 3638 of 2008 . amount and signed the agreement in question. Dharminder Kumar (P.W.3) is the scribe of the agreement of sale in question. He stated that the agreement had been scribed by him at the instance of the appellant. He further stated that the appellant had received Rs.2,60,000/- from the respondent at the time of execution of the said agreement. It is not the case of the appellant that the agreement in question was without consideration or it was the result of any fraud. The appellant failed to prove on record that he had received only Rs.1,000/- from the respondent as token earnest money. The respondent had paid the major part of the sale consideration i.e Rs.2,60,000/- and only Rs.20,000/- remained to be paid. In fact, Exhibit D.2 is the application moved by the appellant before the Joint Sub Registrar wherein the appellant had himself admitted that he had received Rs.2,60,000/- from the respondent as earnest money in respect of the sale of the land in question and the sale deed was to be executed upto 27.11.1997. So, the application (Exhibit D.2) moved by the appellant shows that no fraud had been committed upon him by the respondent. In fact, in this application (Exhibit D.2) the appellant had voluntarily admitted that he had received Rs.2,60,000/- from the respondent. In this view of the matter, both the Courts were justified in decreeing the suit of the respondent to the extent indicated above. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent -5- Regular Second Appeal No. 3638 of 2008 . illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 15, 2011. JUDGE ak