IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.649 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 16.02.2010 Sita Devi and others ..Appellant/Defendants Versus Ram Pal ..Respondent/Plaintiff CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr.Pankaj Kalia, Advocate for the appellant/defendants **** This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 5.11.1998 of plot measuring 02 marlas which was executed by predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants. Both the Courts below have held that the respondent was successful in proving the agreement to sell as well as established his readiness and willingness and consequently decreed the suit. Following questions have been raised:- (i) Whether it is a case of misreading of evidence as PW1 Om Parkash and PW2 Suresh has neither mentioned about the passing of consideration nor boundaries in their statement. They have also stated that the agreement to sell runs into three pages but the last page has been signed by late Ram Kishan. So, relying upon the statement of the attesting witnesses, it is a complete case of misreading of evidence? R.S.A. No.649 of 2008(O&M) -2- (ii) Whether scribe should have been produced by the plaintiff respondent keeping in view the statement of PW1 and PW2 who cold not dispel the suspicion regarding the passing of the consideration, boundaries of the house and signatures of Ram Kishan? (iii) Whether the signatures of late Ram Kishan in a criminal case bearing FIR No.285 dated 27.9.85 registered with PS Gharaunda can be taken to be admitted signatures when the identity of late Ram Kishan in other case is disputed that the criminal case was against the same Ram Kishan, who is party to the agreement to sell dated 5.11.1998 ? (iv) Whether late Ram Kishan was competent to enter into an agreement to sell when late Sh.Sadhu Ram alias Sudhu Ram father of Ram Kishan had already transferred the plot in question in favour of Sita Devi prior to the execution of the agreement to sell ? (v) Whether there is a case of hardship for the present appellants/defendants who have constructed a house over the plo in question by spending a huge amount of Rs.10.00 lacs ? (vi) Whether equity lies in favour of the present appellants/defendants or in favour of plaintiff / respondent as the appellant/defendants belonged to a weaker section and Bara in question, which was allotted to them was not transferable ? R.S.A. No.649 of 2008(O&M) -3- Question Nos.(i), (ii) and (iii) are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on evidence or based on such preverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for intereference under Section 100 CPC. As regards Question Nos.(v) and (vi) no evidence has been led to make out the case of an exceptional hardship except an averment that the whole family of the appellants are residing in the house in question. With regard to Question No.(iv), this argument cannot be raised by the successors-in- interest of the executant of the agreement to sell. Accordingly, by hoding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, stands disposed of. 16.02.2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sukhpreet JUDGE