RSA No.445 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 445 of 2011 Date of Decision: 18 - 7 - 2011 Kewal Singh ....Appellant v. Rattan Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate for Mr.Mahesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Appellant-plaintiff remained unsuccessful in two rounds of litigation. Hence, he has filed the present Regular Second Appeal. Appellant-plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction seeking a declaration that respondent-defendant be restrained from alienating and delivering possession of the site shown as ABCD, detail and description of which has been given in the plaint. The suit land was situated at Village Ballo Majra. It was stated in the suit that the appellant-plaintiff and respondent-defendant had purchased plots in equal shares from Kaka Singh. After the purchase, the appellant-plaintiff had constructed a residential house on the land falling in his share on the northern side of the site plan. The plot of the respondent-defendant was lying vacant. The RSA No.445 of 2011 [2] appellant-plaintiff desired to purchase the plot from the respondent- defendant. The agreement was oral. Thereafter, the appellant-plaintiff had raised level of the demised plot and installed a saw mill therein. It is stated that the appellant-plaintiff had paid Rs.75,000/- to the respondent-defendant as an advance and thereafter he constructed a shed and one room on the site in question. It is stated that sale deed could not be executed as there was a ban imposed by the Punjab Government. It is pleaded that since the respondent-defendant started bargaining with other persons, a dispute arose between them and ultimately the dispute was settled by the S.H.O., Police Station, Morinda on 8.6.2001 and a compromise was reduced into writing, according to which, the respondent-defendant was to receive Rs.95,000/- from the appellant-plaintiff. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was to be paid to the respondent-defendant on 20.6.2001 and the remaining amount was to be paid on 6.2.2002 at the time of registration of the sale deed. Upon issuance of notice, respondent-defendant caused appearance and filed the written statement. He denied all the averments made in the suit. Further objection was raised regarding maintainability of the suit and it is stated that the appellant-plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the suit property and he has not approached the Court with clean hands. However, it was admitted that the appellant-plaintiff and the respondent-defendant had purchased the plots in equal shares. It was further pleaded that the respondent-defendant is in possession of the plot. It was further pleaded that as per compromise arrived at between the parties, the appellant-plaintiff had to remove the saw mill on or before 25.5.2001. Same was vacated by the appellant-plaintiff and thereafter the respondent- RSA No.445 of 2011 [3] defendant came into possession of the suit plot. Respondent-defendant further stated that he had executed an agreement to sell of the plot in favour of one Kesar Singh and had delivered possession to him. After completion of pleadings, the trial Court formulated the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction on the ground as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 3. Relief. The parties to the suit led their evidence. The trial Court held that alleged agreement to sell is stated to be oral. No date, month and year of the agreement has been proved on record. No witness of the alleged oral agreement has been cited or examined by the appellant-plaintiff. No terms and conditions of the alleged oral agreement between the plaintiff and defendant have been proved on record. No document has been proved on the record to show that the earnest money was paid to Rattan Singh. The Court further held that compromise Ex.P1 recorded at the intervention of S.H.O., Police Station, Morinda having been arrived at between the parties was due to coercion. Thus, issue No.1 was decided in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and against the respondent-defendant. Issue No.2 was not pressed by the respondent-defendant and, therefore, same was decided against the respondent-defendant and in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. Since, it was held that the appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove the agreement to sell, the suit was dismissed. The findings given by the trial Court have been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. Mr.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- RSA No.445 of 2011 [4] plaintiff has stated that oral agreements are not alien to the law and there is no legal necessity that oral agreement should be reduced into writing. There is no quarrel with regard to the proposition advanced by counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. But even an oral agreement has to be proved. No details of the same have been pleaded or proved. There is nothing on record to prove that the said oral agreement was executed in whose presence, on which date and what was the last date by which the sale deed was to be executed. The concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below suffer from no infirmity. No law point, much less the substantial one has been raised before me. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) July 18, 2011. JUDGE RC