RSA No.4537 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4537 of 2010 Date of Decision: 30.11.2010. Gurdeep Singh .....Appellant Versus Hardial Singh ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. B. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendant -Gurdeep Singh, having lost in both the Courts below have come up by way of instant second appeal. Plaintiff-respondent-Hardial Singh filed suit against the defendant-appellant for possession of the suit land measuring 48 kanals 16 marlas by specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.01.2005 alleging that the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre and received Rs.3,13,000/- as earnest money and executed the aforesaid agreement. Sale deed was agreed to be executed upto 20.07.2005. Accordingly, plaintiff went to the office of Sub-Registrar on 20.07.2005 with requisite amount to get the sale deed executed and registered in terms of the agreement, but the defendant did not turn up and committed breach of the agreement. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations and RSA No.4537 of 2010 -2- inter alia pleaded that he was addicted to drugs and liquor. He had earlier sold his 15 kanals 10 marlas land to Kabal Singh on 04.09.2002 with the understanding that Kabal Singh would provide money to the defendant-appellant for his entire life time for drugs and liquor, but Kabal Singh refused to do so after execution of the sale deed. The defendant then contacted the plaintiff, who helped the defendant. The plaintiff used to provide liquor and drugs and also meals to the defendant. Once the plaintiff and Kabal Singh brought the defendant to Muktsar and after intoxicating him, got some writing executed on the pretext that it was an agreement by Kabal Singh to pay money to the defendant for drugs and liquor after 6 months. On filing of suit, the defendant learnt that plaintiff and Kabal Singh by playing fraud had obtained signatures on the impugned agreement. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar vide judgment and decree dated 29.07.2009 decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the defendant stands dismissed by learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 09.08.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff besides himself appearing in the witness-box has examined Niab Singh attesting witness of the agreement as PW- 2. Both of them have stated according to the plaintiff's version that RSA No.4537 of 2010 -3- the defendant executed the aforesaid agreement and received earnest money. On the other hand, there are statements of defendant and one Sukhdeep Singh. However, the said statements are not sufficient to rebut the plaintiff's cogent evidence. On the contrary, the defendant has admitted his signatures on the impugned agreement. Statements of the defendant and his witness Sukhdeep Singh have also been discussed by the Courts below and found to be unreliable. Stand taken by the defendant that he was alcoholic and drug addict has not been proved. The defendant was not intoxicated, when he appeared in the witness box. He was not intoxicated when Sukhdeep Singh appeared in the witness box on subsequent date. No treatment evidence regarding de-addiction has either been led by the defendant. There is also no medical evidence to depict that the defendant was alcoholic or drug addict. Consequently, concurrent finding by the Courts below that defendant voluntarily executed the impugned agreement and received the earnest money does not suffer from any infirmity much less illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference in second appeal. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is supported by cogent reasons. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the defendant had already sold 15 kanals 10 marlas land to Kabal Singh and after sale of the suit land measuring 48 kanals 16 marlas to the plaintiff, the defendant and his family would not be left with any land and thus it is a case of great hardship. The contention has been noticed simply to be rejected. The contention is completely beyond RSA No.4537 of 2010 -4- pleadings. No such plea has been raised in the written statement and, therefore, plaintiff respondent had no opportunity to respond to the same. Even otherwise, the aforesaid contention is not substantiated by the evidence on record. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law,much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 30.11.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE