R. S. A. No. 4962 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 4962 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 05, 2010 Sher Singh .... Appellant Vs. Udmi Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. M. S. Randhawa, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is second appeal by Sher Singh defendant, who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below. Suit was filed by respondent Udmi Singh against the appellant for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 24.12.1998 alleging that the defendant, being owner of plot measuring 605 sq. yds., as described in the plaint, agreed to sell 1/3rd share thereof to the plaintiff for Rs.1,60,000/- vide agreement dated 24.12.1998 and received Rs.1,50,000/- as earnest money and delivered possession of western 1/3rd portion of the suit property to the plaintiff. Sale deed was to be executed up to 05.11.1999, but the date of execution of sale deed was extended to R. S. A. No. 4962 of 2009 2 19.11.1999 and then to 10.01.2000 by executing writings to this effect. However, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed even on 10.01.2000, although the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar for getting the sale deed executed and registered as per agreement. Notice served by the plaintiff on the defendant also proved futile. The defendant denied the plaint allegations. It was denied that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and executed agreement. It was alleged that both the parties were jointly trading in buffaloes and the defendant had received Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a writing for the same. The defendant thereafter paid Rs.1,10,000/- to the plaintiff and also later on gave two buffaloes worth Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff and only amount of Rs.15,000/- was outstanding from the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to get the agreement cancelled, but later on, the plaintiff backed out. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 20.03.2007, decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 22.04.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that suit property has not been properly described in the impugned agreement R. S. A. No. 4962 of 2009 3 and therefore, suit for specific performance of the agreement could not be decreed. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh and another vs. Manohar Lal and others reported as 2004 (3) P. L. R. 684. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. In the case of Surjit Singh (supra), there was no description at all of the property in question in the agreement. In the instant case, however, the agreement, as shown by learned counsel for the appellant, contains description of the suit plot by boundaries and also by area. In addition thereto, it is also mentioned in the agreement that it is the same plot, which the defendant purchased vide registered sale deed no.459 dated 12.07.1993. Consequently, it cannot be said that the suit property has not been described in the impugned agreement to sell. On the other hand, even objection to the aforesaid effect was not taken in the written statement. On the contrary, identity of the suit property was admitted by the defendant by pleading that he is owner of the suit property. Thus, there was no dispute regarding description or identity of the suit property and the same stood admitted by the defendant. Plaintiff has led sufficient evidence to prove the impugned agreement. He has examined scribes of the agreement and the writings, vide which date of sale deed was extended. The plaintiff has also examined one attesting witness, who has proved the agreement as well as both the R. S. A. No. 4962 of 2009 4 writings regarding extension of date of sale deed. The plaintiff has also examined another attesting witness to prove writing regarding extension of date of sale deed. The plaintiff himself also stepped into witness-box to prove the agreement as well as both writings regarding extension of date of sale deed. The plaintiff's evidence has been found to be sufficient by both the courts below to prove his case. Concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. On the other hand, defendant's version is intrinsically unreliable. If the defendant had executed writing regarding receipt of Rs.1,50,000/-, it defies logic that the defendant paid Rs.1,10,000/- in cash and Rs.25,000/- in kind, without any writing regarding the said repayment. On the other hand, defendant had admitted his signatures on the impugned agreement. Moreover, defendant has not explained as to why he executed two writings regarding extension of date of sale deed. There is no infirmity, much less illegality or perversity in the concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find that no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. There is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. July 05, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) R. S. A. No. 4962 of 2009 5 monika JUDGE