RSA No.986 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.986 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 15.3.2010 Babu Ram ......Appellant(s) Versus Inder Singh and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.3017-C of 2008 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.986 of 2008 (O&M) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 3.9.1980 with regard to the suit property with consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed. As per the averments made in the suit, respondent No.1 being owner of the suit property, agreed to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff-appellant by executing an agreement to sell dated 3.9.1980 in the presence of the witnesses after receiving the entire sale consideration. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the possession of the suit land was also handed over and thereafter, he constructed a residential house on the said plot. He requested respondent No.1 to get the sale deed registered in the month of January, 2000 but he kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Issuance of legal notice dated 18.1.2000 also remained ineffective. In the meantime, respondent No.1 executed the sale deed in RSA No.986 of 2008(O&M) 2 favour of respondent No.2. The appellant has also impugned the registered sale deed in respect of the suit property executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 also. Upon notice, respondent No.1 filed separate written statement controverting the averments made in the plaint besides raising preliminary objections. On merits, it was pleaded that the suit land had already been sold to respondent No.2 vide sale deed dated 21.1.2000 for a valuable consideration and the possession of the same was also delivered to her. Execution of the agreement in question and receipt of entire sale consideration was denied. It was further submitted that the aforesaid agreement in question was not having any binding effect on his rights. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Respondent No.2 filed separate written statement. It was pleaded that in the year 1980, the appellant was a minor and therefore, he was not in a position to enter into an agreement and moreover, he was not having any funds to purchase the suit property and the instant suit was filed just to pressurize her. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff who was her son was residing with her in the house constructed over the suit property. It was further pleaded that she was a bona fide purchaser for a consideration. All other averments made in the plaint were controverted. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for. On appreciation of evidence, both the Courts below found that the alleged agreement in question dated 3.9.1980 was, at the most, receipt for Rs.1,000/- which as per the contents of the document was received by respondent No.1 from the appellant and that the aforesaid writing Ex.PW2/B was neither a sale deed nor an agreement to sell, therefore, the question of performing specific performance of the same does not arise at all. Both the Courts below have also recorded a concurrent finding of fact RSA No.986 of 2008(O&M) 3 that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to prove on record that respondent No.1 had agreed to sell the land in dispute vide alleged agreement to sell dated 3.9.1980. Learned counsel for the appellant has also not disputed the fact that he is son of defendant/respondent No.2 who is admittedly the owner of the suit property. The factum of the appellant being minor at the time of execution of alleged agreement dated 3.9.1980 was also not refuted at any stage. The appellant has also failed to raise any argument in his favour as to how the suit filed in the year 2000 qua agreement to sell dated 3.9.1980 was within limitation. On the basis of evidence on record, it cannot be said that the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below are perverse. The substantial question of law as framed by the learned counsel for the appellant in the grounds of appeal does not arise in the present case. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. March 15, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE