RSA No.4814 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4814 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 21 , 2009 Gurmail Singh ...........Appellant Versus Ranjit Kaur and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Jagdeep S.Virk, Advocate for the appellant. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Gurmail Singh filed a suit for possession . The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2005. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 29.9.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 3 to 6 of its judgment reads as under:- “ 3. The brief facts of the suit of the appellant/plaintiff are that on 4.6.1998 the defendant/respondent No.1 entered into an agreement to sell her house No.141, Dashmesh Nagar, Behind RSA No.4814 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Central Jail, Tripuri, Patiala for a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs. An amount of Rs.2.0 lakhs was paid as earnest money. The date for execution of the sale deed was agreed as 16.6.1999 and the possession is to be delivered on execution of the sale deed. The expenses for execution and registration of the sale deed were to be paid by the appellant/plaintiff. Further it was stipulated that in case of failure of defendant No. 1 in execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff was entitled either to recover Rs.4.0 lakhs i.e. Rs. 2.0 lakhs as earnest money and Rs.2.0 lakhs as damages or get sale deed executed through court. The defendant/respondent no.1 represented that she has not entered into any agreement earlier to it. Defendant/respondent No.3 being property dealer got the deal matured and he was to get commission. However, said respondent/defendant pressurized the appellant/plaintiff to pay the commission to which the appellant told that he will pay commission only after execution of the sale deed. In the wake of said position, even the appellant/plaintiff offered to the defendant/respondent No.1 to get the sale deed registered even prior to date agreed but she did not agree and asked the appellant to wait till 16.6.1999. However, in the meantime she sold the property to defendant no.2 vide registered sale deed dated 27.11.1998 for a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs and possession has been delivered by her to defendant No.2 after receiving sale consideration. The appellant/plaintiff was and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement dated 4.6.1998. He requested the defendant no.2 to treat the sale deed dated RSA No.4814 of 2009 (O&M) 3 27.11.1998 as a paper transaction and further to join hands with defendant No. 1 to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, but he refused to do so. Hence, this suit. 4. On notice, the respondent/defendant no.1 admitted that she was the owner of the suit house. However, she denied having executed agreement to sell dated 4.6.1998 in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. She submitted that she raised a loan of Rs.1.5 lacs from the appellant/plaintiff. He got her signatures on some blank papers and got her photographs as a mark of security. She also denied that 16.6.1999 was fixed for execution of the sale deed. However, she admitted having executed sale deed dated 27.11.1998 in favour of respondent/defendant No.2 to whom she has delivered possession. Denying other allegations she prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Respondents/defendants No.2 and 3 in their separate written statement stated that respondent/defendant No.1 was the owner of the suit house and she told the replying respondents/defendant that there was no agreement with any person regarding the suit house. However, respondent/defendant No.3 did not get the transaction matured and as such there was no question of demand of commission. It was further averred that respondent/defendant No.2 is bonafide purchaser for value without notice. Possession was delivered to her in pursuance of sale deed dated 27.11.1998 after receipt of consideration of Rs.1.5 lakhs and she is in possession of he suit house. Denying other averments prayer for dismissal of the suit was thus made. RSA No.4814 of 2009 (O&M) 4 6. Replications were filed in which the plaintiff reiterated his averments made in the plaintiff reiterated his averments in the plaint while denying those contained in the written statements. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant no.1 had agreed to sell the disputed house to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 4.6.1998?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement in question?OPP 3.Whether defendant no.2 is bonafide pruchaser with value and without notice?OPD 4. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Appellant-plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 4.6.1998. Appellant succeeded in proving the due execution of the agreement to sell. The sale deed in pursuance to the agreement to sell was to be executed on or before 16.6.1999. However, defendant No.1-Ranjit Kaur sold the property in dispute to defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated 27.11.1998. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that defendant No.2 was a bona fide purchaser for consideration. Defendant No.2 had no knowledge of the agreement to sell dated 4.6.1998 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the Courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant in alternative for refund of earnest RSA No.4814 of 2009 (O&M) 5 money along with interest. The finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below to the effect that defendant No.2 was a bona fide purchaser for consideration calls for no interference by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge December 21, 2009 arya