RSA No. 2143 of 2005 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2143 of 2005 Date of Decision: 17.8.2009 Amritpal Singh ......Appellant Versus Harpal Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Defendant No.1 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby a decree for recovery of Rs.2 lacs along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 28.4.1994 till realisation of the said amount, has been granted. The plaintiff-respondent agreed to sell his 2 kanals plot to the defendant vide agreement dated 23.5.1988. The total sale consideration was agreed to be Rs.6 lacs out of which an amount of Rs.4 lacs was paid on the aforesaid date and balance amount of Rs.2 lacs was kept with the defendant-appellant towards payment to the Estate Office, Chandigarh on account of un-earned increase. It was agreed that after the no objection certificate is issued by the Estate Office, Chandigarh Administration, the balance sale amount after deposit of un-earned increase, shall be paid to the RSA No. 2143 of 2005 (2) plaintiff. Since the amount was not paid, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery. It is the case of the appellant that on 31.5.1988, there was an agreement between the parties and it was agreed to share the amount of Rs.2 lacs equally. Both the Courts have found that the defendants have failed to prove any such settlement arrived at on 31.5.1988 and consequentially decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.2 lacs along with interest thereon. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in fact, a power of attorney was executed on 31.5.1988 in terms of the agreement dated 23.5.1988 entered between the parties. The execution of the said power of attorney is in terms of Clause 8 of the agreement. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Courts below that there is no compromise on 31.5.1988 is untenable. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is required to be read along with Clause 7 of the agreement. Clause 7 of the agreement contemplates execution of the general power of attorney in favour of nominee of the defendants. Clause 8 of the agreement deals with execution of Special Power of Attorney on receipt of the balance amount of Rs.2 lacs. As a matter of fact, it was a general power of attorney, which was executed in favour of the nominee of the defendants on 31.5.1988. Since no special power of attorney in terms of Clause 8 of the agreement has been executed, the finding recorded by the Courts below that there was no settlement as propounded by the appellant, cannot be said to be unwarranted or not tenable in the eyes of law. RSA No. 2143 of 2005 (3) Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 17-08-2009 ds