IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2888 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 07.07.2011 Harpal Singh .... APPELLANT Versus Thath Singh ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. This is defendant's Regular Second Appeal against the judgments and decrees, passed by both the courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession by way of specific performance of the contract of sale dated 15.5.2001 with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from alienating the suit land by way of sale or in any other manner, was decreed. The defendant- appellant denied the execution of the agreement to sell. He has also denied the payment of ` 4,50,000/- to him as earnest money at the time of the execution of the alleged agreement. He has also denied his signatures on the said agreement. He has also pleaded that the agreement is false and his signatures might have been procured, since he was dealing with the RSA No. 2888 of 2009 -2- plaintiff-respondent for selling his agriculture produce. After considering the evidence led by both the parties, both the courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the defendant-appellant had entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff-respondent in respect of the land in question and he had also received earnest money of ` 4,50,000/-. A finding has been recorded that execution of the agreement has been duly established by the two attesting witnesses as well as PW.3 Krishan Sharma, Stamp vendor, from whom the defendant-appellant had purchased the stamp paper, on which the agreement was written. The issue with regard to readiness and willingness of the plaintiff-respondent to perform his part of the contract was also decided in favour of the plaintiff- respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to pursue this court that the findings recorded by the courts below on the issues of execution of the agreement (Ex.P1), passing of consideration and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff-respondent to perform his part of the contract, are perverse. But during the course of arguments, he could not establish any perversity or illegality in the findings of fact recorded by the courts below on the aforesaid issues. His main argument concerns with the appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible in the Regular Second Appeal. Both the attesting witnesses of the agreement, namely Leela Ram and Nazim Ali, Lambardar, have duly proved the execution of the agreement. The passing of consideration as well as the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff- RSA No. 2888 of 2009 -3- respondent to perform his part of the contract have been clearly proved. Even otherwise, once the defendant-appellant in his written statement has taken the stand that he did not execute the agreement, it does not lie in his month to say that the plaintiff-respondent was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that in the instant appeal, no substantial question of law is involved. Dismissed. July 07, 2011 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE