RSA No. 620 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA No. 620 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.03.2008 Sat Ram and others ...Appellant Versus Hassan Mohammad ...Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nirmal Yadav -.- Present : Mr. Yash Dev Kaushik, Advocate for the Appellant -.- Nirmal Yadav, J. (Oral) This is defendants' regular second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated dated 13.12.2005 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Palwal, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of contract, and the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby findings recorded by the trial Court have been affirmed. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the agreement to sell dated 18.09.1995 was got executed by playing fraud upon their father-Bahadur Chand, who was 90 years old and blind man of an unsound mind. It is stated that the plaintiff has not been able to prove that the property in question could not be sold without any legal necessity. It is also pleaded that appellants Sat Ram, Sant Lal, Somnath and Jagdish sons of RSA No. 620 of 2008 2 Bahadur Chand were also present at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. A perusal of the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below shows that the agreement to sell has been proved by producing both the attesting witnesses, PW1 Juber and PW2 Ahmad Ali, Lamberdar, who have categorically stated that the agreement to sell, EX.P1 and receipt EX.P2 were signed by them in the presence of each other and at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, Rs.10,000/- as earnest money was also paid to the executant. Both the courts below have considered the above arguments and have repelled the same by mentioning that there is not an iota of evidence produced by the defendants to show that any fraud was played upon their father, for getting the sale agreement executed. They have also not been able to substantiate the plea that Bahadur Chand, the executant of the agreement to sell was of unsound mind or any fraud was played. Nothing has been shown to take a view contrary to that of both the courts below. It cannot be said that the findings so recorded are either perverse or based on no evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. (Nirmal Yadav) Judge March 10, 2008 mohan