IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3220 of 2008 Date of decision : January 21, 2010 Bhagat Singh ....Appellant versus Darshan Singh and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate, for the respondents L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by plaintiff Bhagat Singh (now since deceased and represented by his legal representatives) having failed in both the courts below. The plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of oral agreement of sale allegedly entered into by defendant nos. 1 to 3 and father of defendant no. 4 for sale of suit land measuring 2 marlas 5sarsahi being 127/960 share of land measuring 1 kanal 5 marlas. The courts below have found that neither the oral agreement is proved nor delivery of possession of the suit land by defendants to plaintiff is proved. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Regular Second Appeal No. 3220 of 2008 -2- On 10.11.2008, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not challenging the findings of the Court below as such on merits. However, the prayer is that as the respondents are not owing any land in the village except 2 marlas and 5 sarsahis, which was allegedly agreed to be sold to the appellant and on this land the appellant had constructed his house, he is ready and willing to compensate the respondents for this small piece of land, in case they agree. Notice of motion for 14.1.2009.” On 26.11.2009, the preceding date of hearing, counsel for respondents told that there was no chance of compromise in the case. In view of said submission and in view of order dated 10.11.2008, the appeal has to be dismissed. In addition to the aforesaid, it may be noticed that the contention of appellant that he had constructed his house over the suit land is also misconceived. Counsel for the appellant has himself shown me site plan Ex. P2 annexed by the plaintiff-appellant with the plaint. It reveals that substantial area out of total joint land measuring 1 kanal 5 marlas is lying vacant and there is construction over a very small portion of it. Accordingly in the event of partition, defendants can get their share out of vacant portion of the joint land and no prejudice or special loss is going to be caused to the appellant on account of construction over a small portion of the joint land. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below against the plaintiff-appellant based on appreciation of evidence. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference by this Court in the second appeal. No question of law much less Regular Second Appeal No. 3220 of 2008 -3- substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) January 21, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'