RSA No. 2807 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2807 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.7.2011 Ram Kali and another ...Appellants Versus Gurdas Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.JS Jaidka, Advocate for the appellants *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) CM No.7693-C of 2011 Heard. In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 1 day in refiling the present appeal is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. CM No.7694-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.7695-C of 2011 Application is allowed. Annexure A-1 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. RSA No. 2807 of 2011 The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 9.5.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide which appeal filed by the present appellants against RSA No. 2807 of 2011 (O&M) 2 the judgment and decree dated 14.5.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samrala, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by learned courts below. Respondent -plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the land in dispute on the basis of agreement dated 22.4.2002. Defendants -appellants denied the alleged signatures on the said agreement. Rather a plea has been taken that it is a forged and fabricated agreement, as he had taken advance of Rs.20,000/- from the respondent- plaintiff and at that time, signatures and thumb impressions were obtained on some blank papers and when he returned the said loan, those papers were not returned to him. Though as per the pleadings, appellants-defendants had taken the plea that no agreement was executed by them. However, later on, a plea was taken that the agreement was executed as a security. Hence, the said plea was not righty accepted by the courts below. Agreement in dispute has been duly proved by respondent-plaintiff by examining Scribe of the said agreement as well as attesting witness of the agreement. There are also two endorsements on the agreement, which are exhibited as P-3 and P-4 regarding extending time for execution of the agreement to sell. It has not been explained as to how the endorsements were made on the agreement by respondent-plaintiff. Moreover, the plea has been taken by the appellants- defendants that it was in the year 1993, loan of Rs.20,000/- was taken by them from the respondent-plaintiff and at that time, signatures of the RSA No. 2807 of 2011 (O&M) 3 appellants were obtained on some blank papers. However, the agreement Ex.P2 has been written on Stamp paper, which was purchased by the appellants on 22.4.2002. Hence, it has not been explained as to how signatures of the appellants are appearing on the stamp paper sold on 22.4.2002. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decree. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in the second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 14.7.2011 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE