CM No.1633-C of 2009 :1: and RSA No.581 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.1633-C of 2009 and RSA No.581 of 2009 Date of decision: 08.03.2010 Hisam Pal ..Appellant Versus Sumer Chand and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. CM No.1633-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded in the Civil Miscellaneous Application, same stands allowed and delay of 4 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.581 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.01.1998 executed by the pro-forma - respondent No.2 (who incidentally is the father of the appellant). It is not disputed that on the date of agreement to sell the property stood in the name of Manbhari (grand- mother i.e.Nani) of the respondent No.2 . In response to the suit of the respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 took a plea of total denial stating that he had neither entered tinto an agreement to sell nor received any CM No.1633-C of 2009 :2: and RSA No.581 of 2009 earnest money. The appellant took the plea that after the death of Manbhari, the property was inherited by her daughter Ram Piari, who had willed it to the appellant. Thus, as per the appellant, the father had no right to enter into an agreement to sell. The Courts below noticed three salient facts, viz.:- (i) The respondent No.2-Lachmi Chand was the only son of Ram Piari; (ii) The fact that the mutation of the property in dispute, in favour of the appellant took place after the agreement to sell; (ii) That the property in dispute was not mentioned in the Will; Consequently, disbelieving the version of the appellant, the suit was dismissed. The following questions have been proposed:- (a) Whether the suit agreement is true, valid and binding on the rights of the Appellant ? (b) Whether a decree for possession can be passed against a person who is neither owner nor in possession of the land in question ? (c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.01.1998? (d) Whether the defendant No.1 was competent to enter into the alleged agreement to Sell dated 27.01.1998 and can pass a valid title to the plaintiff ? (e) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are sustainable in the eyes CM No.1633-C of 2009 :3: and RSA No.581 of 2009 of law ? Learned counsel has argued that respondent No.2- Lachmi Chand his father could not have entered into the agreement to sell in view of the fact that he was not the owner of the property. However, both the Courts, relying on the three salient factors mentioned-above and having come to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had succeeded in proving the agreement to sell, decreed the suit. In view of all the facts mentioned-above, no fault can be found with the conclusion of the Courts below that the story trotted out by the appellant was merely a conspiracy between the father and the son to first take the money from the respondent No.1 and then to deny him his right by taking the plea that respondent No.2 was not the owner of the property. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that this finding is either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. In these circumstances, holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. March 8, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE