R.S.A. No.3500 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.3500 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:15.09.2011 Bhola Singh ......Appellant Versus Labh Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.PKS Phoolka, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.D.S.Malwai, Advocate, for the respondent. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Having kept the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh Versus Harnam Singh and another 2008(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, into focus, now the short and significant question, though important that arises for determination is, as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in the instant regular second appeal, so as to invoke the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 100 C.P.C. or not. 2. The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the present regular second appeal and emanating from the record is that, Labh Singh son of Gurdev Singh-respondent-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against Bhola Singh son of Kishan Singh-appellant-defendant(for short “the defendant”) for a decree of specific performance and for registration of the sale-deed got scribed by him on 28.05.2003, in favour of the plaintiff, after receiving sale price of `6,00,000/- with respect to the land in dispute, situated within the area of Village Rureke Kalan, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur. 3. The case set-up by the plaintiff, in brief, insofar as relevant was that, R.S.A. No.3500 of 2010(O&M) 2 the defendant agreed to sell his land in litigation to him for a sum of `6,00,000/- and after completing all the required formalities, he got the sale-deed scribed from Amar Nath, Deed-Writer, Tapa, and put his thumb impressions in token of its correctness in the presence of PWs Gurdev Singh, Lamberdar and Suba Singh son of Gulzara Singh. 4. Having scribed the sale-deed, the plaintiff along with the witnesses appeared before the Joint Sub Registrar, Tapa, but the defendant cleverly slipped away with the consideration amount. He neither turned up nor got the sale-deed registered. The plaintiff remained present whole day in the office of Sub Registrar, along with the witnesses, but in vain. The plaintiff confronted the defendant, who admitted his fault and promised to get the sale-deed registered. He kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately, outrightly refused to get the sale-deed registered on 23.08.2003. It necessitated the plaintiff to file the present suit against the defendant. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of specific performance against the defendant, in the manner depicted hereinabove. 5. The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, cause of action, and locus standi of the plaintiff. However, it was admitted that he is owner of the suit land, but denied the execution of the sale-deed and receiving of the amount of sale price of `6,00,000/-. According to the defendant that, the plaintiff obtained his signatures on application for partition of the joint land, but subsequently, he prepared the indicated sale-deed with ulterior motive to usurp the suit land. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiff filed the replication. In the R.S.A. No.3500 of 2010(O&M) 3 wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the relevant issues for proper adjudication of the case. 7. The parties to the lis, in order to substantiate their respective pleas, brought on record oral as well as the documentary evidence. 8. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 04.12.2006. 9. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendant filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well with costs by the first Appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 28.05.2010. 10. The appellant-defendant still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this respect. 12. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendant on the pretext and on the application for partition of joint land, but prepared the sale-deed in question to usurp the land, so, the Courts below committed a mistake in decreeing his(plaintiff) suit, lacks merit. 13. As is evident from the record that, according to the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to sell his land in question, received total consideration of `6,00,000/- and executed the sale-deed(Ex.P1) in respect of the land in dispute. Although, the defendant has vaguely denied the allegations, but the plaintiff has duly proved the execution of the sale-deed(Ex.P1) and passing of the entire consideration amount. The plaintiff has examined PW1 Amar Nath, scribe and PW2 Gurdev Singh and PW3 Suba Singh, attesting witnesses of the sale-deed. PW5 Dharminder Kumar has reiterated the sale of stamp papers worth `36,000/- R.S.A. No.3500 of 2010(O&M) 4 for execution of the sale-deed for a sum of `6,00,000/- to the defendant. All these witnesses have categorically stated on oath that having received an amount of `6,00,000/-, as sale price of the land, the defendant has executed the sale-deed (Ex.P1) in favour of the plaintiff and thumb marked the same in token of its correctness. They have fully supported the case of the plaintiff on all vital counts and negatived the false story set-up by the defendant in this context. 14. Having completed all the codal formalities and taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record in the right perspective, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was affirmed by the first Appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 28.05.2010, which in substance is as under:- “The contention of the defendant/appellant that he was made to signed certain documents on the pretext of moving an application for partition is totally falsified from the statement of Sh.A.K.Palta, Advocate, who appeared into witness box as PW6 and deposed regarding the filing of application for partition by the defendant/appellant Bhola Singh, certified copy of which has been proved on the file as PW6/7. Application Ex.PW6/7 shows that application was moved for partition of the property way back on 22.06.2001, whereas sale deed copies of which have been placed on the file Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 was scribed on 28.5.2003 i.e. after two years. Therefore, this contention of the defendant/appellant that present sale-deed, copies of which have been proved on the file Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 is result of fraud and he never thumb marked these documents is without any merit. To prove the execution of the sale deed dated 28.05.2003, plaintiff/respondent has examined its scribe Amar Nath, who has appeared as PW1, who has specifically deposed by way of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A that sale deed dated 28.05.2003 was scribed by him at the instance of Bhola Singh, son of Hazura Singh in favour of Labh Singh son of Gurdev Singh, which was read over and explained to him, who after admitting it correct, thumb marked the same in presence of Gurdev Singh Lambardar (PW2) and Suba Singh(PW3), which was entered by him in his register also copy of which has been proved on the file Ex.P2, which version it corroborated by the statement of Gurdev Singh Lambardar (PW2) and by the statement of Suba Singh(PW3), the marginal witnesses of the sale deed. R.S.A. No.3500 of 2010(O&M) 5 Dharminder Kumar(PW5) has deposed regarding sale of stamp paper worth `36,000/- for execution of sale deed for a sum of `6,00,000/- to the defendant/appellant and evidence has come on the file that this amount was paid by the defendant/appellant for purchase of stamp paper and he also proved photo copy of register entry Ex.P5. From the oral as well as documentary evidence, brought on the file the learned lower Court rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiff/respondent has been able to prove execution of sale deed dated 28.05.2003 and regarding receipt of entire sale consideration of `6,00,000/-, but defendant/appellant failed to appear before the Sub Registrar for its registration.” 15. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant behalf. 16. Moreover, the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, have recorded the above-mentioned concurrent findings of fact. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under Section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of the well- reasoned decision arrived at by the Courts below, in this regard. 17. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, to assail the findings of the Courts below. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on his behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 18. Meaning thereby, the entire matrix revolves around the re- appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally R.S.A. No.3500 of 2010(O&M) 6 permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since, no question of law, much less substantial is involved, so, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmir Singh's case(supra) in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 19. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 20. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. September 15, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE