RSA No.2912 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2912 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 22, 2011 Teja Singh .....Appellant v. Punna .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.8068-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 71 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.8069-C of 2011 Requests for making good the deficiency in Court fee. Application is allowed. Appellant is permitted to make good the deficiency in Court fee. It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that he has already made good the deficiency in Court fee. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.8070-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.2912 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 2.2.2011 passed by learned Additional District RSA No.2912 of 2011(O&M) -2- Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 21.3.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dasuya, decreeing the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Admitted facts are that both the parties are closely related being real brothers. Respondent-plaintiff filed this suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 13.6.2003 allegedly executed by present appellant-defendant in favour of respondent-plaintiff. `1,25,000/- were paid to the appellant-defendant at the time of execution of the agreement. Only `10,000/- remained to be paid. Both the parties have been recorded as co-owners in possession of the property in dispute as per jamabandi. It has been admitted by appellant-defendant that he was co-owner in possession of the property in dispute. However, he denied having executed any agreement to sell and also denied having received `1,25,000/-. Respondent- plaintiff has been able to prove due execution of agreement in his favour by appellant-defendant by examining attesting witness of the agreement as well as by proving payment of `1,25,000/-. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant that only attesting witness to the agreement, namely, Hazara Singh, has also deposed that possession of specific portion was given to respondent-plaintiff at the time of execution of agreement and he also raised boundary wall, however, his deposition to this extent was not accepted by the Courts below as it was held that the property is still joint of the parties RSA No.2912 of 2011(O&M) -3- and by accepting the counter-claim of appellant-defendant, respondent- plaintiff was restrained from raising any construction till execution of the sale deed. However, even if it is taken that parties are still co-owners in possession of the premises in dispute and respondent-plaintiff was restrained from changing the nature of the suit land till execution of the sale deed, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below in decreeing the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell, which has been duly proved and payment of `1,25,000/- has also been duly proved. 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 and decrees. Finding recorded by 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. 22.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge