RSA No.2369 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2369 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.9.2010 Daulat Ram ......Appellant(s) Versus Avtar Singh and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Harindar Kumar Aurora, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) CM No.7065-C of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.2369 of 2010 (O&M) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiff- respondents for specific performance of the agreements of sale in question has been decreed. The plaintiff-respondents filed the instant suit alleging that Ganga Ram, father of the defendant, executed an agreement to sell dated 20.10.1978 vide which he agreed to sell the property in question measuring 2 kanals 9 marlas for a consideration of Rs.7,000/- and received Rs.2500/- as earnest money from the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that the appellant received a total sum of Rs.6500/- from the plaintiffs out of total sale consideration of Rs.7,000/-. The sale deed was to be executed within one month from the date of notice issued by the seller after getting the property redeemed, as the same was pledged for raising some loan. It was further alleged that the possession of the property was also delivered. RSA No.2369 of 2010 (O&M) 2 The terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement were renewed by executing further an agreement dated 12.1.1979. It was further alleged that Ganga Ram, father of the defendant, failed to get the property redeemed. In the meantime, he died and the defendant being his legal heir, inherited the suit property. After the death of Ganga Ram, the plaintiffs requested the defendant to get redeemed the property in question and execute the sale deed. It also came to the knowledge of the plaintiff- respondents that the property stood redeemed on 20.5.2000. Since the defendant refused to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreements to sell, necessity arose to file the present suit. Upon notice, the suit was contested. Various preliminary objections were raised in the written statement. On merits, it was alleged that the father of the defendant never executed any agreement to sell as averred nor received any earnest money. It was further averred that the agreements to sell in question were forged and fabricated documents and therefore, there was no question of execution of any sale deed and the suit was liable to be dismissed. Replication to the written statement of defendant was filed controverting the averments of the written statement and reiterating those of the plaint. The trial Court after going through the record of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties decided all the issues against the defendant and decreed the suit. The appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant before the Lower Appellate Court was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 16.2.2010. Still not satisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. RSA No.2369 of 2010 (O&M) 3 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. While dismissing the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the agreement to sell dated 20.12.1978 (Ex.P-1) and agreement dated 12.1.1979 (Ex.P-2) stood duly proved from the evidence adduced on the record and the plea taken by the appellant that the aforesaid agreements were forged and fabricated could not be proved by him. The plea of limitation was also held against the appellant in view of the specific condition incorporated in the agreement dated 12.1.1979 (Ex.P-2) to the effect that Ganga Ram after redeeming the suit property will issue prior notice to the plaintiffs for execution of the sale deed. Admittedly, neither Ganga Ram nor defendant-Daulat Ram ever informed the plaintiffs regarding redemption of the suit land. It is not in dispute that the property of the appellant was redeemed from mortgagee on 20.5.2000 whereas the present suit was filed on 6.6.2002 and in this view of the matter, it cannot be held that the same was beyond limitation. In view of the aforesaid findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, which could not be disputed, from any material evidence adduced on record, by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. September 9, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE RSA No.2369 of 2010 (O&M) 4