IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2672 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 1, 2011. Shakuntla Devi. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Har Chandi. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nuh dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 16.03.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Nuh vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell was dismissed. RSA No.2672 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, appellant-plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.09.2000 for `80,000/- and `53,000/- was received by respondent-defendant as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.07.2001 on receipt of remaining sale consideration. Further plea is that appellant-plaintiff was always ready and willing and still ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. It is further contended that time for execution of the sale deed was extended up to 18.09.2002 vide writing dated 15.07.2001, Ex.P3. As respondent- defendant refused to perform his part of the contract, the present suit has been filed. On notice being issued respondent-defendant had taken the plea that it was a case of taking of loan of `50,000/-, which was returned by him and that the alleged agreement was also cancelled and however, appellant- plaintiff did not return the said agreement and filed the present suit. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff mainly on the ground that appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove the endorsement, Ex.P3 for extension of the date for execution of the alleged agreement and that hence, the suit was not within limitation. Appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Nuh. 2 RSA No.2672 of 2011 It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellant-appellant that endorsement, Ex.P3 has been duly proved from the deposition of handwriting and finger print expert examined by her, who had deposed that thumb impression appearing on the endorsement, Ex.P3 belongs to respondent-defendant. Hence, it is contended that as deposition of handwriting and finger print expert remained unrebutted, both the courts below have committed illegality in coming to the conclusion that endorsement, Ex.P3 has not been proved. It is further contended that otherwise execution of agreement is duly proved and receipt of earnest money is also duly proved and that respondent-defendant failed to prove the return of the amount and cancellation of the agreement. Admittedly, respondent-defendant is an illiterate person. He has allegedly put thumb impression on the agreement to sell as well as on the endorsement, Ex.P3 which is on the back of the agreement. Hence, it was for the appellant-plaintiff to prove that endorsement, Ex.P3 allegedly executed by respondent-defendant and its contents were duly read over and explained to him and that he agreed to extend the time of execution of sale deed. Both the courts below have rightly come to conclusion that merely on the ground that as per report of handwriting and finger print expert, the endorsement, Ex.P3 contains thumb impression of respondent-defendant, it cannot be said that the alleged endorsement was duly executed by respondent-defendant. There is no witness to the said writing. The deed writer who has allegedly scribed the said writing deposed that no such writing dated 15.07.2001, 3 RSA No.2672 of 2011 Ex.P3 was typed by him and that thumb impressions were not obtained in his presence on the said writing. There is only a self-serving statement of appellant-plaintiff, which was duly rebutted by respondent-defendant, who has taken the plea that the alleged agreement to sell was cancelled when the amount of loan was returned by him to the appellant-plaintiff. Appellant- plaintiff while appearing herself in the witness-box as PW6 deposed that she did not visit the court compound on 15.07.2001. She has also deposed that she could not say as to who has signed and put thumb impressions on the same. 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 ) November 1, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 4