RSA No. 2706 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2706 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22.7.2009 Daleep Chand ......Appellant Versus Nirbhai Singh .......Respondent 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 S.N. Chopra, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22.5.2002, was decreed. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit on 4.10.2005, alleging therein that Rs.70,000/- was paid as earnest money to the defendant on 22.5.2002 out of total sale consideration of Rs.85,000/-. The sale deed was to be executed on 15.6.2003. Since the sale deed was not executed, the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance after serving a notice to the defendant on 15.9.2005. The stand of the defendant was that, in fact, the agreement was RSA No. 2706 of 2009 (2) a false and fabricated document. It was alleged that there was a loan transaction and intention was of advancing loan to the defendant @ 2% per month, which is also clear even from the averments made in the plaint. If such agreement is brought on record, it would be proved to be a loan transaction. The defendant further alleged that he approached the plaintiff for loan and the plaintiff advanced loan to the defendant @ 2% interest per month. The plaintiff advanced Rs.40,000/- as a loan and the same has been returned by the defendant by adding interest @ 2% per month. The plaintiff appeared as his own witness as PW1 and also examined PW2- Jiwan Kumar and PW3 -Gurnam Singh, marginal witness. On the other hand, the defendant appeared as his own witness. Both the Courts have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the agreement of sale was executed by the defendant. The circumstances taken into consideration by the Courts below include the jamabandi Exhibit P.7 brought by the defendant before the execution of the agreement to sell from the Halqa Patwari. The defendant admitted his thumb impressions on the agreement to sell. The Courts also found that the defendant has not lodged any complaint against the plaintiff or the commission agent for not issuing the receipt, when he paid Rs.40,000/- along with interest to the commission agent. There is no evidence produced by the defendant to the effect that an amount of Rs.40,000/- was returned to the plaintiff or that the agreement to sell was executed as a transaction of loan. The findings recorded by the Courts below are sought to be disputed by way of reappreciation of evidence. It could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material RSA No. 2706 of 2009 (3) 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 22-07-2009 ds