R.S.A. No. 2359 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2359 of 2007 Date of Decision : 31.01.2009 Rashpal Singh ....Appellant Versus Fateh Chand ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 8.12.2005 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 21.3.2007. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22.3.1995 pertaining to agricultural land belonging to the respondent for a consideration of Rs.1 lakh. An amount of Rs.8,552/- was paid as earnest money and it was agreed between the parties that the sale deed shall be executed on or before 15.1.1996. It is the case of the plaintiff/appellant that he remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar on 15.1.1996 with the balance amount but the respondent did not turn up. He also pleaded that he has suffered a loss of Rs.3 lakhs on account of non-execution R.S.A. No. 2359 of 2007 -2- of the sale deed by the respondent. The respondent, who contested the suit, pleaded that he had never executed the agreement to sell the land and he also denied the receipt of any earnest money. It was pleaded that there were money transactions with the plaintiff/appellant and the respondent used to borrow money from him on some occasions but the same was returned with interest. He further pleaded that in March, 1995 he had borrowed Rs.4,000/- from the appellant and had repaid the same and at that time the appellant had obtained his signatures on 2/3 blank papers which were abused by him. The parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22.3.1995 as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled for alternative relief for recovery of Rs.17,104/-?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit ?OPD 4. Whether agreement is containing additions, alterations and interpolations and the same render the alleged agreement inadmissible?OPD 5. Relief. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the agreement to sell did not stand proved as at that point of time the consideration of 8 kanals of land was approximately Rs.8 lakhs. It also came to the conclusion that the stamp papers, which were R.S.A. No. 2359 of 2007 -3- allegedly purchased by the appellant on 20.3.1995, were not for the said purpose as they stood in the name of Ashwani Kumar and that names had been manipulated so as to make it seem that those were purchased for the purpose of the agreement. On all the counts learned trial Court disbelieved the plaintiff/appellant and concluded that it was a loan transaction and therefore, granted the alternate prayer of return of Rs.4,000/- along with interest @ 2% per mensem from 22.3.1995 till the institution of the suit and @ 6% per annum from the date of the decree till its realisation. In appeal, the findings of the learned trial court were affirmed with the slight modification that the alternate relief of Rs.4,000/- was enhanced to Rs.8,552/- with proportionate costs. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the findings recorded by both the Courts are erroneous as the agreement had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgment, I am of the opinion that concurrent findings of fact have been recorded that the agreement to sell was never in existence between the parties. It has also been concluded that the appellant had never purchased the stamp papers as alleged by him on 15.1.1996, the ostensible date for execution of the sale deed. In this view of the matter, when the findings of fact have been arrived at on the basis of evidence before the Courts below, and no substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen in the present appeal and the alternate relief has been justifiably modified by the first Appellate Court, no interference is called for in the second R.S.A. No. 2359 of 2007 -4- appeal. Consequently, the same being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 31.1.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss