RSA No.3218 of 1984 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3218 of 1984 Decided on : 25-08 2010 Smt. Kamla Devi ....Appellant VERSUS Sohan Lal (since deceased) through his L.Rs ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Akshay Bhan and Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocates for the appellant Ms. Alka Sarin, Advocate for the respondents MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal is directed against the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 23.10.1984. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance seeking to enforce an agreement to sell dated 13.7.1977 for a total consideration of Rs.30,000/-. Pursuant to the agreement, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid. Since the respondent failed to perform his part of the agreement, instant suit was filed. Respondent upon notice denied the averments made in the plaint and set up a plea that the husband of the plaintiff namely Pawan Kumar, Siri Ram, the father of Pawan Kumar and husband of Mishri Devi and Purshotam are partners in a firm at Mahendargarh which deals in RSA No.3218 of 1984 2 cloth and that he had purchased clothes worth Rs.107.62 P from the aforesaid firm on 9.11.76 and had agreed to pay the said amount after six months which he could not repay within the stipulated period and thus, Siri Ram, father in law of the plaintiff took thumb impressions of the defendant on some papers. He specifically denied that payment of Rs.25,000/- was made to him by Smt. Mishri Devi. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit but in appeal, the findings were reversed. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the findings of the Additional District Judge Narnaul in the impugned order dated 23.10.1984 has contended that the agreement to sell had been validly executed and had been proved in accordance with law. He further contended that passing of the sale consideration has also been proved and therefore the findings of the Court below which did not appreciate the evidence on record are erroneous. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that there was complete ambiguity in the evidence regarding the passing of the sale consideration and even if it is accepted that agreement to sell was validly executed but the fact that it was acted upon by passing of the sale consideration was not proved and that intent was clearly missing. Therefore, findings of the Court below cannot be termed to be erroneous. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that if the record is to be seen, then the learned counsel for the appellant miserably failed to substantiate his contention clearly that an amount of Rs.25000/- was paid to the respondent as a part of the sale consideration. There is complete contradiction in the statement RSA No.3218 of 1984 3 of PW 1 Pawan Kumar who stated that Rs.20,500/- was paid whereas other witnesses stated that Rs.25,000/- was paid. There is also discrepancy in the fact that to whom the payment was made. Appellant in the plaint stated that amount was paid to Sohan Lal whereas subsequently in replication it was pleaded that amount was paid to Mishri Devi, mother in law of plaintiff. For the aforesaid reasons when these crucial pieces of evidence are to be evaluated then it does not inspire confidence even if it is accepted that agreement to sell was executed. That apart this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court when pure question of facts i.e from existence of agreement to sell to factum of passing of the sale consideration have been established in the impugned judgment. In a regular second appeal no interference is warranted in the absence of a substantial question of law. No ground to interfere. Hence, dismissed. August 25, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge