-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 4239 of 20109 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: February 10, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 4239 of 20109 (O&M). Swinder Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Tara Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Sawinder Singh, one of the plaintiffs, is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of an -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 4239 of 20109 (O&M). agreement to sell dated 12.3.1996 pertaining to the land measuring 17 Kanals 11 Marlas (for short `the suit land') with consequential relief of permanent injunction, or in the alternative for recovery of Rs.60,000/- was dismissed. Defendant-respondent No.1 Tara Singh, who was owner of the suit land, executed an agreement to sell on 12.3.1996 in favour of the plaintiffs after receiving Rs.30,000/- as earnest money. Sale deed was to be executed on 10.3.1997. Possession of the suit land had allegedly been delivered by defendant- respondent No.1 Tara Singh to the plaintiffs at the time of execution of the agreement. On 10.3.1997, on the back of the agreement (Exhibit P.1), a writing (Exhibit P.2) was executed by defendant No.1 whereby he agreed to extend the date of execution of the sale deed. It was stipulated that when Joginder Singh, father of the plaintiffs ( name of father of the plaintiffs has wrongly been mentioned as Sawinder Singh before the trial Court as well as before the lower appellate Court and this Court whereas name of the father of the plaintiffs is Joginder Singh son of Mall Singh) would execute the sale deed of the land agreed to be sold by him to Mohinder Singh, father of defendants Nos. 1 to 6, the sale deed qua the agreement in question would be executed on the next day and that date of sale as 10.3.1997 was incorporated in the agreement (Exhibit P.1) inadvertently. It may be mentioned here that father of the plaintiffs, namely, Joginder Singh and father of defendants Nos. 1 to 6, namely Mohinder Singh are the real brothers being the -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 4239 of 20109 (O&M). sons of Mall Singh. The land which was to be sold by the father of the plaintiffs was to be allotted to him by the Government as per writing Exhibit P.2. Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 alleged that they were co-sharers and transferees of the suit land as they had purchased the same from defendant No.1, but the plaintiffs alleged that the sale deed, if any, in that regard by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 6 was illegal. As per averments made in the plaint, the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. Though the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, but the first Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. For reaching this conclusion, the lower appellate Court was influenced by the fact that suit filed by Mohinder Singh, father of defendants Nos. 1 to 6, against Joginder Singh, father of the plaintiffs, for getting the sale deed executed from Joginder Singh, was decreed by the trial Court. Appeal filed by Joginder Singh against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of Mohinder Singh was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. As noticed above, Mohinder Singh and Joginder Singh are real brothers. One of the plaintiffs, namely, Joga Singh while deposing in Court as P.W.1 admitted that Joginder Singh had not executed the sale deed in favour of Mohinder Singh. On 10.3.1997, on the back of the agreement (Exhibit P.1), a writing (Exhibit P.2) was executed by defendant No.1 whereby he agreed to extend the date of execution of the sale deed. It was stipulated in Exhibit -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 4239 of 20109 (O&M). P.2 that when Joginder Singh, father of the plaintiffs would execute the sale deed of the land agreed to be sold by him to Mohinder Singh, father of defendants Nos. 1 to 6, the sale deed in respect of the suit land would be executed. It was also mentioned in the writing Exhibit P.2 that the land which was to be sold by the father of the plaintiffs to the father of defendants Nos. 1 to 6 was to be allotted to the father of the plaintiffs by the Government. The writing Exhibit P.2 stands proved on record by the statement of Joga Singh (P.W.1) ,one of the plaintiffs, and Gurdip Singh (P.W.2), an attesting witness of the same. As noticed above, Joginder Singh did not execute sale deed in favour of Mohinder Singh. It may also be mentioned here that the agreement to sell executed by Joginder Singh in favour of Mohinder Singh is also dated 12.3.1996, which is the date of agreement in question Exhibit P.1. Under these circumstances, when Joginder Singh had not executed the sale deed in favour of Mohinder Singh, as agreed to vide writing Exhibit P.2 and the sale deed in respect of the agreement in question was to be executed on the next date of the execution of the sale deed by Joginder Singh in favour of Mohinder Singh, the lower appellate Court held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was pre mature. Accordingly, it was dismissed as such by the lower appellate Court by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. For reaching this conclusion, the lower appellate Court also took into consideration the fact that the averment of the plaintiffs that possession of the suit land had been delivered to the plaintiffs by -5- Regular Second Appeal No. 4239 of 20109 (O&M). defendant No.1 at the time of execution of the agreement (Exhibit P.1) was negatived by Joga Singh, one of the plaintiffs, himself while deposing as P.W.1 when in cross-examination he admitted that possession of the land had not been delivered by the plaintiffs by defendant No.1 at the time of execution of the agreement (Exhibit P.1). No fault can be found with the above findings of the lower appellate Court. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by the first Appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. ( MOHINDER PAL ) February 10, 2011. JUDGE ak