IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 143 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 5, 2011. Teja Singh. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Vinder Singh. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Avtar Singh Bhatti, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 05.12.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 04.01.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya vide which alternative relief of recovery of `1,10,000/- was decreed against the present appellant-defendant. However, suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance was dismissed. RSA No.143 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed suit for a decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 29.06.1997 and in the alternative for recovery of `1,10,000/-. On notice being issued, plea was taken by present appellant- defendant that he never executed the said agreement and that he only borrowed `20,000/- from respondent-plaintiff and he got written the said agreement as a security for the said loan. It was also contended that the said loan was returned to Dilbagh Singh on 29.06.1997. On appreciation of evidence, relief of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell was declined to respondent- plaintiff by learned trial Court and however, alternative relief of recovery of `1,10,000/- was allowed. Appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. Sufficient evidence has been adduced by respondent-plaintiff to prove execution of agreement, Ex.P2 and receipt of earnest money of `65,000/- by present appellant-defendant. Execution of the said document has been admitted by present appellant. His plea was only that his signatures/thumb impression was taken on the said document by respondent- plaintiff when he allegedly borrowed `20,000/- from the plaintiff. However, 2 RSA No.143 of 2011 no evidence was adduced by present appellant-defendant in order to prove the said assertion. There is only self-serving statement of present appellant- defendant. Moreover, learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence did not grant relief of specific performance and alternative relief of recovery of `1,10,000/- has only been granted. 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 both the 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 mis-appreciation 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 5, 2011. JUDGE ‘om’ 3