IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2605 of 2009 Date of decision : January 12, 2010 Gurmit Singh and others ....Appellants versus Amandeep and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. DS Gill, Advocate, for the appellants L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant nos. 2 to 8 who have been un-successful in both the courts below, have filed the instant second appeal. Suit filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 against the appellants and proforma respondent no. 3 stands decreed for specific performance of the agreement to sell entered into by defendant no. 1 (respondent no. 3 herein). Sale deeds executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 8 i.e. appellants have been found to be null and void. Defendant nos. 2 to 8 are sons and wife of defendant no. 1 and widow, sons and daughter of another pre-deceased son of defendant no. 1. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that plaintiff no. 1 Amandeep himself admitted in the witness box that defendant no. 1 at the time of execution of agreement was suffering from back pain and was, therefore, brought on a cot. However, this circumstance would not show that defendant no. 1 while suffering from back pain and unable to move about himself could not have executed the impugned agreement. Defendant no. 1 was in full senses and was, therefore, Regular Second Appeal No. 2605 of 2009 -2- competent to execute the agreement even if he was suffering from back pain and was unable to move about on account of the same. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that there was prior agreement in favour of the appellants executed by defendant no. 1, pursuant to which defendant no. 1 executed sale deeds in favour of the appellants. However, as noticed hereinabove, the appellants are none else but sons and wife of defendant no. 1 himself and also widow, sons and daughter of a pre-deceased son of defendant no. 1. Consequently, the alleged agreement in favour of appellants and the sale deeds in their favour have been rightly undone by the courts below. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants relate to questions of facts and second appeal cannot be entertained thereon. No substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appellants have framed five substantial questions of law as mentioned in paragraph 10, allegedly arising in this appeal. However, the first four questions are questions of facts. Question no. 5 relates to affixation of proper court fee on the plaint but no such issue was even raised in the trial court nor there is any material on record to depict that proper court fee was not affixed on the plaint. On the other hand ad-valorem court fee had been affixed on the plaint and therefore, it cannot be said that proper court fee was not affixed. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) January 12, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'