RSA No.287 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. RSA No.287 of 2009 Date of decision: 6.5.2010 Jawahar Singh .....Appellant vs. Banso Devi and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Vipin Mahajan Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is defendants' appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit filed by Dhian Singh plaintiff ( i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell in question, was decreed. As per the averments made in the plaint, the appellants agreed to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and executed an agreement to sell dated 1.7.1991 for a consideration of Rs.25,000/- and received a sum of Rs.20,000/- as earnest money out of sale consideration. The sale deed was to be executed in terms of the agreement on 30.6.1992 on payment of balance sale consideration. However, with the mutual consent of the parties, the date of execution of the sale deed was extended upto 30.6.1993. It was the further case of the plaintiff that he tendered the balance sale consideration and requested the appellants to execute the sale deed but they put him off on one pretext or the other and failed to turn up for execution of RSA No.287 of 2009 2 sale deed on the stipulated date. Since the appellants refused to admit the claim, plaintiff filed the present suit. Upon notice appellants contested the suit by filing written statement wherein it was submitted that the agreement was vague and the material averments made in the suit were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. After analysing the evidence led by the parties and hearing arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the Courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact with regard to the execution of the sale deed in question and the extension of time thereof, and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the Courts below the appellants have approached this Court by asserting that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:- 1.Whether both the Courts below erred in misreading the evidence led by the appellant ? 2.Whether the findings ignoring material piece of evidence can be sustained ? 3.Whether both the Courts below erred in not appreciating the pleadings in proper perspective ? 4.Whether the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is time barred since extension in time of agreement to sell is forged and a fabricated document ? 5.Whether the decree of specific performance could be passed particularly when suit land already stands partitioned and mutation has already been sanctioned ? 6.Whether the appellant/defendants who do not have saleable rights in the suit land can execute the sale deed ? RSA No.287 of 2009 3 Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are perverse, as the evidence on record has been misread. Elaborating further, learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the stipulated date for execution of the sale deed was 30.6.1992 whereas the case of the plaintiff -respondents is that the date was extended up to June 1993. However, there was enough evidence to prove on record that extension of time vide Annexure P2 was not signed by the appellant, and further it has come in the evidence of one of the witnesses that appellant was not present when the document was prepared and on the basis of this evidence the finding against the appellant and in favour of the plaintiff respondent that the suit was within limitation cannot be accepted and , therefore, judgment and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is without any merit, as the same does not arise from the pleadings of the parties, as despite specific averment made in the plaint with regard to the extension of time the aforesaid averment was not denied by the defendant- appellants and in this view of the fact the evidence sought to be relied upon by the appellant is beyond pleadings and is not admissible. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. From the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant it is made out that the only substantial question raised before this Court by the appellant is: “whether the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are the RSA No.287 of 2009 4 result of misreading of evidence and perverse”. I find considerable merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is well settled that any evidence adduced beyond pleadings cannot be accepted. It is also well settled that substantial question of law based on an argument which was neither pleaded nor proved in the Courts below cannot be raised before this Court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover, concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Courts below, which could not be found fault with by the learned counsel for the appellant.Thus no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. No other argument was raised. Dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 6, 2010 rk