R.S.A.No.3093 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3093 of 2008 Date of Decision:21.10.2008 Smt. Rajwati .....Appellant. versus Narain Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This regular second appeal filed by defendant No.2 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2008 passed by the first appellate Court affirming that of the trial Court dated 14.08.2007 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance was decreed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the averments that defendant No.1 was owner in possession of the agricultural land measuring 16 Kanals 8 Marlas comprised in Khewat No.382min, Khata No.495min situated within the revenue estate of village Manoli, Tehsil and District Sonepat as per jamabandi for the year 1997-98 (here-in- after referred to as the “suit land'). It was pleaded that on 28.2.2002 defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell the suit land to the R.S.A.No.3093 of 2008 -2- plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.65,000/- per acre and received a sum of Rs.16,500/- as earnest money and executed a receipt therefor. It was further pleaded that possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiff on 28.02.2002 itself. The plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to get the sale deed executed as agreed vide agreement dated 28.2.2002 on receipt of the remaining amount of the sale consideration but neither defendant No.1 nor her power of attorney paid any heed to his request. According to the plaintiff, on 03.06.2002, he remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Sonepat, to get the sale deed registered in his favour but defendant No.1 did not turn up for the same and the plaintiff got his presence marked in that office by executing an affidavit in that regard. It was also pleaded that instead defendant No.1 through her general power of attorney without any right to do so sold the suit land to defendant No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 14.6.2002. The stand of the plaintiff was controverted by defendant No.1 through her power of attorney by filing a written statement and raising various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded that she neither entered into any agreement to sell the suit land to the plaintiff nor received earnest money and that possession of the suit land was never delivered to the plaintiff. On the other hand, it was pleaded that the suit land was validly sold to defendant No.2 and possession thereof was handed over to her at the time of execution of the sale deed and now she was in possession of the same. It was further pleaded that the agreement allegedly executed by her in favour of the plaintiff was a forged document and, therefore, not binding upon her rights. The other R.S.A.No.3093 of 2008 -3- averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. Defendant No.2 also filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that defendant No.2 was not having any knowledge regarding any agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. It was further pleaded that the Collector's rate of the suit land as approved by the Government was Rs.1,50,000/- per acre and the answering defendant had paid the same to defendant No.1 and was in possession of the same being bonafide purchaser. With the above-said averments, he also prayed for dismissal of the suit. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property by way of the specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 28.2.2002?OPP 2. Whether defendant No.2 is bonafide purchasers of the suit property by agreement of sell dated 14.6.2002?OPD 3. Relief”. The trial Court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff holding that the agreement to sell dated 28.02.2002, Exhibit P2, was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, and receipt, Exhibit P3, in token of the receipt of the earnest money of Rs.16,500/- was also scribed and that the plaintiff was ready and willing R.S.A.No.3093 of 2008 -4- to perform his part of the contract. Further, issue No.2 was decided against the defendants holding that the sale deed executed and registered in favour of defendant No.2 was illegal, null and void. Accordingly, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.08.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiff directing defendant No.1. to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the balance amount of the sale consideration. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.2 took the matter in appeal and the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.2008 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant made efforts to persuade this Court to come to a different conclusion than that of the Courts below but could not show any material on the basis of which it could be held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below suffer from any mis-reading or mis-appreciation of evidence which may warrant interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. The Courts below had recorded the concurrent findings of fact that defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff on 28.02.2002 and accepted Rs.16,500/- as part payment. Further it was recorded that the sale deed executed and registered in favour of defendant No.2 was illegal, null and void particularly when the subsequent vendee proved to be having due intimation regarding the existence of the prior agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. R.S.A.No.3093 of 2008 -5- No question of law much less the substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. October 21, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE