RSA No.3790 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3790 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: September 26, 2011 Jarnail Singh and another .....Appellants v. Balwant Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.K.Girdhar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Manish Prabhaker, Advocate for respondent no.1. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 7.8.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, dismissing appeal filed by present appellants-defendants against judgment and decree dated 9.2.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patti, decreeing suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and in the alternative for recovery of `1,75,000/- on the averments that the land mentioned in the head note of the suit was originally owned by Jugraj Singh son of Tehal Singh, who has since expired and the present appellants-defendants are his legal heirs, who RSA No.3790 of 2009(O&M) -2- inherited the said property from him. He entered into an agreement to sell the land in dispute at the rate of `7,00,000/- per killa vide agreement to sell dated 6.12.2003 executed in his favour by Jugraj Singh. As per the agreement to sell, sale deed was to be executed on or before last Harri 2004. A sum of `1,00,000/- was paid as earnest money at the time of execution of agreement and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. The plaintiff was always ready and still ready to perform his part of the contract and, however, on refusal of defendants to perform their part of the contract, the present suit was filed. On notice being issued appellant-defendants no.1 and 2 filed written statement denying the very execution of agreement by deceased Jugraj Singh in favour of respondent-plaintiff. However, it is admitted that Jugraj Singh was owner of the land in dispute. Specific plea has been taken that Jugraj Singh used to sign in Punjabi and Urdu and that he never thumb marked any document during his lifetime and hence the agreement is a forged one. After appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that execution of agreement to sell by Jugraj Singh in favour of present respondent-plaintiff has been duly proved. It was also held that respondent-plaintiff was always ready and still ready to perform his part of the contract, whereas appellants-defendants refused to get register the sale deed pursuant to the said agreement and hence suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was decreed. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge,Tarn Taran. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellants is RSA No.3790 of 2009(O&M) -3- that no finding has been recorded by learned first appellate Court that respondent-plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, plea has been duly discussed by learned trial Court while discussing issue no.2 on the point. It has been proved that respondent-plaintiff had visited the office of Sub Registrar to get the sale deed executed and however, appellants-defendants did not come present to get the sale deed executed. Moreover, in view of the fact that the very execution of the agreement has been denied by appellants-defendants, it cannot be said that they were ready to perform their part of contract and that there was any default on the part of respondent-plaintiff. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 26.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge