R.S.A. No. 661 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 661 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.2.2011 Maghar Singh ......Appellant Versus Gamdoor Singh .......Respondent ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.5.1999. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that defendant was owner of the land bearing Khasra Nos.129//21(8-0) 153//2/1/1(7-0) 1/2(1-0). Defendant had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff on 10.5.1999 qua the suit property. Sale consideration was ` 2,50,000/- per acre and ` 4,80,000/- were paid towards earnest money at the time of execution of agreement to sell. Sale deed was to be executed on 16.1.2000. However, on 17.1.2000, defendant had failed to appear before the Sub-Registrar for execution of the sale deed, whereas the plaintiff had remained present in the Office of Sub-Registrar Baghapurana to perform his part of the contract. 16.1.2000, being Sunday, was a holiday. Hence, the suit R.S.A. No. 661 of 2011 (O&M) 2 was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant, in his written statement, admitted the fact that he was owner of the property in dispute, but denied the execution of the agreement to sell in question in favour of the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to possession as owner by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 10.5.1999 regarding the suit land, on payment of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre less Rs.4,80,000/- already paid ? OPP. 2. Whether in the alternative plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.6,81,600/- alongwith interest at the rate of 1% p.m ? OPP. 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction ? OPP. 4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPP. 5. Whether suit is not maintainable ? OPD. 6. Reilef.” Vide judgment and decree dated 22.10.2008, trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff qua recovery of ` 4,80,000/- alongwith interest from the defendant. However, the suit of plaintiff seeking relief of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell in question was declined. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal filed by the plaintiff by Additional District Judge, Moga vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. R.S.A. No. 661 of 2011 (O&M) 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The question qua execution of the agreement to sell in question by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff is not in dispute in the present appeal. The question that requires consideration is as to whether the plaintiff was also entitled to the relief of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell in question. A perusal of copy of the jamabandi for the year 2002-03 (shown during the course of arguments) reveals that defendant had mortgaged the land bearing Khasra No.129//24/2, 153//2/1/1, 1/2 measuring 15 kanals 6 marlas with Punjab and Sind Bank. A perusal of the copy of the jamabandi for the year 2007-08 (shown during the course of arguments) reveals that khasra No.129/21 (8-0) had been sold to Bikkar Singh. In these circumstances, the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell in question could not have been allowed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had taken the plea that he was in possession of the suit property on the basis of agreement to sell in question, but he had failed to establish his plea as the possession of the plaintiff was not depicted in the revenue record. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 7, 2011 Anand