R.S.A.No.2529 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. No. 7404-05-C of 2008 and R.S.A.No.2529 of 2008 Date of decision: 17th November, 2009 Hans Raj Singh .....Appellant Versus Hardeep Singh and another ......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for the appellant. Rajive Bhall, J.(Oral) Civil Misc. No. 7404-C of 2008 Allowed as prayed for. Civil Misc. No. 7405-C of 2008 and R.S.A.No.2529 of 2008 The appellant challenges judgments and decrees dated 21.04.2007 and 4.03.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar and the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, decreeing the suit filed by respondent no. 1 and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The plaintiff/respondent no. 1 filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of truck bearing registration no. HR-46C-3038 and therefore, the defendant/appellant be restrained from transferring the truck to any other person or taking forcible possession. The plaintiff/respondent no. 1 pleaded that pursuant to an agreement dated 13.02.2004, he paid a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- to the R.S.A.No.2529 of 2008 -2- appellant and Rs. 2,10,000/- to respondent no. 2 to discharge the loan raised by the appellant. However, as the truck continues to stand in the name of the appellant, he is threatening to take possession of the truck. In response, the defendant/appellant filed a written statement, denying the averments in the plaint by asserting that he has only received Rs.1,40,000/- in cash and the balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- remains unpaid. It was prayed that as the suit had been filed to avoid the payment of Rs.2,10,000/- it should be dismissed. Respondent no. 2 was proceeded against ex parte. After considering the entire evidence on record, the trial court decreed the suit by holding that the agreement dated 13.02.2004, establishes that the appellant has received Rs.3,40,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 5,50,000/-. The balance amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- has been paid to respondent no. 2. As Respondent no. 1 is owner in possession of the truck, the appellant is required to transfer the ownership of the truck within one month. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decreed, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 4.03.2008, the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. Counsel for the appellant submits that the agreement Ex.P-1 records the receipt of Rs.3,40,000/- but actually as a R.S.A.No.2529 of 2008 -3- sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- remains to be paid, the courts below could not have directed the appellant to transfer the truck to respondent no. 1, without directing respondent no. 1 to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,10,000/-. I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgments and decrees and find no reason to hold that the courts below have committed any error of law as would require interference in second appeal. Admittedly, the appellant has executed the agreement Ex.P-1 dated 13.02.2004. The agreement, records a sale consideration of Rs.5,50,000/- out of which Rs.3,40,000/- is recorded as paid to the appellant and Rs.2,10,000/- was paid to respondent no. 2, for discharge of a loan raised by the appellant. The appellant does not deny his signature on the agreement Ex.P-1 and infact, admits the agreement. The appellant, therefore, cannot be heard to urge that he has not received the entire sale consideration. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for adjudication, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [RAJIVE BHALLA] 17th November, 2009 JUDGE Shivani Kaushik