R.S.A. No. 1444 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1444 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.4.2009 Ramesh Kumar ....appellant versus Harbhagwan and another ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, and Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocates, for the appellant. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.3.2009 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents for specific performance of agreement stands decreed. The plaintiff/respondents brought a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 8.3.2005 executed by defendant/appellant in respect of his house, ground and first floor. The suit was contested. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the parties had entered into an agreement dated 8.3.2005, and further that the plaintiff/respondents were R.S.A. No. 1444 of 2009 (O&M) -2- willing and always willing to perform their part of contract. Consequently, decreed the suit. Mr. Arun Jain, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: - "1. Whether the forged and fabricated agreement to sell can be specifically enforced without being proved on record that amount of Rs.5.00 lac was taken as loan? 2. Whether the findings of the learned Courts below are based on misreading and misappreciation of evidence? In support of the substantial questions of law, the learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the transaction between the parties was that of loan, and the defendant/appellant had no intention to sell the land. It is also the contention of the learned senior counsel that the stamp paper was said to have been purchsed on 7.3.2005 by third party, therefore, the findings recorded are outcome of misreading of evidence. There is no force in the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant. The defendant/appellant had admitted his signatures on the agreement to sell. Thus, it was for him to prove that the agreement was not for sale of land. The learned Courts below, therefore, on appreciation of evidence rightly held that the agreement to sell was executed by the plaintiff/respondents after receipt of earnest money. It was also rightly held that the plaintiff/respondents were willing and always willing to perform their part of contract. Thus, the R.S.A. No. 1444 of 2009 (O&M) -3- learned Courts below rightly decreed the suit. No fault can be found with the findings recorded on appreciation of evidence. Consequently, it is held that the substantial questions of law raised do not arise for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is ordered to be dismissed in limine, but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge April 2, 2009 R.S.