IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1339 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.3.2009 Bara Singh … Appellant versus Parminder Singh … Respondent Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: This is defendant's second appeal directed against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff for possession through specific performance of agreement to sell dated 29.3.2006 has been decreed. Plaintiff in his suit pleaded that defendant Bara Singh agreed to sell to him his land measuring 16 kanals, as detailed in the plaint for a total consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- and on receipt of Rs.3,20,000/- as earnest money, he(defendant) executed an agreement to sell dated 29.3.2006 in his favour in presence of the attesting witnesses, namely, Hardam Singh and Meet Singh. The date stipulated for execution and registration of the sale deed was 31.7.2006. Plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendant did not turn up to execute the sale-deed and thus, committed breach of the contract. Hence the suit. Upon notice of the suit, defendant in his written statement denied having executed the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. It may be apt to mention that after closure of plaintiff's evidence, the defendant did not produce even a single witness in evidence despite the grant of as many as 5 opportunities including a warning of last opportunity. So much so, he himself also did not step into the witness-box to barely deny the factum of execution of agreement to sell as also the passing of consideration amount thereunder and thus, his evidence was closed by order. Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, RSA No. 1339 of 2009 -2- vide judgment and decree dated 25.7.2008 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved therefrom, defendant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.2008. Hence, the present second appeal. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, have concurrently held that plaintiff in order to prove due execution of agreement to sell, Exhibit P-1, produced attesting witnesses of the agreement to sell, affidavit of the scribe of the said agreement to sell, who categorically deposed that the agreement to sell was executed by the defendant in their presence. However, the defendant failed to produce any witness, including himself, to admit or deny the agreement to sell, Exhibit P-1 and therefore, the evidence so led by the plaintiff went unrebutted before the Court below and believing the same to be correct, a decree for possession through specific performance of agreement to sell dated 29.3.2006, Exhibit P-1, has rightly been passed. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. March 30, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE