R. S. A. No. 3523 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 3523 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 09, 2010 Amarjit Singh .... Appellant Vs. Kartar Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. C. L. Verma, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant no.3 Amarjit Singh has filed the instant second appeal having lost in both the courts below. Suit was filed by Kartar Singh – respondent no.1 against Kishan Singh (since deceased and represented by his widow Jinder Kaur – respondent no.2), Charanjit Singh – defendant no.2/respondent no.3 and appellant Amarjit Singh – defendant no.3, for possession of suit land measuring 3 bighas 11 biswas by specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.07.1991. The plaintiff alleged that Kishan Singh – defendant no.1, for himself as well as on behalf of other co-sharers, agreed to sell 7 R. S. A. No. 3523 of 2010 2 bighas 4 biswas land to the plaintiff @ Rs.95,000/- per killa (comprised of 4 bighas 16 biswas land) and received Rs.50,000/- as earnest money and executed agreement dated 30.07.1991. Sale deed was to be executed up to 30.09.1991, later on extended to 31.10.1991. Defendant no.2 also admitted the said agreement and affixed signatures thereon regarding his share in the land. Amrik Singh Lambardar was witness of the agreement along with Kasturi Lal. Plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but defendants no.1 and 2 committed breach thereof. Defendants no.1 and 2, in connivance with defendant no.3-appellant and Amrik Singh Lambardar, executed sale deed dated 13.07.1992 of the suit land in favour of defendant no.3, who had knowledge of the impugned agreement in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, defendant no.3 is also bound by the agreement to the extent of shares of defendants no.1 and 2. Share of defendant no.1 in the land, which was agreed to be sold, came to 1 bigha 14 biswas only, whereas share of defendant no.2 came to 1 bigha 17 biswas. Accordingly, plaintiff filed suit relating to 3 bighas 11 biswas land only belonging to defendants no.1 and 2, out of 7 bighas 4 biswas land agreed to be sold. Defendant no.3 contested the suit and pleaded that compromise was effected between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 Kishan Singh on 20.12.1994 and accordingly Kishan Singh executed sale deed dated 20.12.1994 in favour of plaintiff regarding some other land and in view of R. S. A. No. 3523 of 2010 3 said compromise, suits instituted by the plaintiff against defendant no.1 were to be withdrawn. It was also alleged that plaintiff was not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement as he did not have requisite amount for the same on the date stipulated in the agreement for execution of the sale deed. Defendant no.3 also claimed to be bona fide purchaser of the suit land for consideration without notice of the agreement. Defendant no.3 learnt of the agreement on receiving summons in the suit and thereafter, defendants no.1 and 2 asked defendant no.3 not to worry as plaintiff did not have money for purchasing the suit land and later on, other land was sold to plaintiff vide sale deed dated 20.12.1994 as per compromise. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar, vide judgment and decree dated 04.08.2008, decreed the plaintiff's suit partly relating to 1 bigha 14 biswas land only belonging to defendant no.1 alone, whereas suit regarding land of defendant no.2 was dismissed. First appeal preferred by defendant no.3 stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali), vide judgment and decree dated 01.06.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.3 has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Both the courts below have come to concurrent finding that plaintiff-respondent no.1 has proved his case against defendant no.1 relating R. S. A. No. 3523 of 2010 4 to 1 bigha 14 biswas land. It has also been found that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and defendant no.3 is also bound by the said agreement and cannot be said to be bona fide purchaser of the suit land relating to 1 bigha 14 biswas land in question. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal in any manner. It may be added that parties belong to the same village and consequently, defendant no.3 could not be unaware of the impugned agreement in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in sale deed dated 20.12.1994, it has been recited that plaintiff Kartar Singh would withdraw all his suits instituted against Kishan Singh – defendant no.1 and consequently, the instant suit was also required to be withdrawn in view of compromise. The contention cannot be accepted. The instant suit had been instituted on 24.05.1994, whereas sale deed relating to other land was executed on 20.12.1994. If there had been any compromise relating to instant suit, the defendants would have ensured that the instant suit was withdrawn as per compromise or the compromise was recorded in the suit. However, admittedly defendants took no such step for withdrawal of the suit or for recording of alleged compromise. On the contrary, plaintiff had also filed another suit against defendant no.1 and in terms of compromise, as recited in sale deed dated 20.12.1994, the plaintiff withdrew the said other suit. Apparently, recital in the sale deed dated 20.12.1994 does not relate to R. S. A. No. 3523 of 2010 5 the instant suit, in which defendant no.1 had no interest as he had already sold the suit land to defendant no.3. Learned counsel for the appellant also vehemently contended that plaintiff did not have sufficient money for getting the sale deed executed on 31.10.1991 in terms of agreement. The contention cannot be accepted. The plaintiff has produced his bank pass book (Ex.P-4) depicting balance amount of Rs.88,659.80 standing to the credit of the plaintiff on the relevant date. Total balance sale consideration payable by the plaintiff for 7 bighas 4 biswas land was about Rs.1,10,000/- including expenses of sale deed. The plaintiff has stated that he also had Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- with him in addition to the amount in the bank account. Moreover, for purchasing 3 bighas 11 biswas land, for which the suit was filed, amount of Rs.21,000/- only was required as the balance sale consideration, whereas plaintiff had amount of more than Rs.88,000/- in his bank account. Thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiff did not have the requisite amount to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. September 09, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE