RSA No.1951 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1951 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.8.2010 Sher Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Rajinder Singh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. HNS Gill, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.5717-C of 2009 CM is allowed. Delay, if any, in making up the deficiency in Court fee, is condoned. CM No.5718-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 59 days in refiling this appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.1951 of 2009 (O&M) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.5.2000 with consequential relief of permanent injunction, was decreed. As per the averments made in the suit, the plaintiff-respondent, on the representation of the defendant-appellant, agreed to purchase the land measuring 4 bighas 5 biswas as detailed in the head note of the plaint at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per bigha. The plaintiff made the payment of Rs.1,03,500/- as earnest money to the appellant on 16.5.2000 on which RSA No.1951 of 2009 (O&M) 2 date, the agreement was executed by the appellant in favour of the plaintiff-respondent agreeing to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee upto 30.8.2001. It was further averred that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and was so ready at the time of filing of the suit. However, the defendant- appellant failed to come present in the office of Sub Registrar on the stipulated date and on his refusal to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement in question, the necessity arose to file the present suit. Upon notice, the defendant-appellant appeared and filed written statement in which he admitted that he owns and possesses the suit land, however, he denied having agreed to sell the same by virtue of the agreement to sell dated 16.5.2000 in favour of the plaintiff and also denied having received the earnest money of Rs.1,03,500/-. It was further averred that in the year 1999-2000, the appellant had taken the land measuring 25 bighas 18 biswas owned by the plaintiff on lease for a period of one year at the rate of Rs.2000/- per bigha per annum. The appellant failed to pay the lease money to the plaintiff-respondent. Consequently, the parties arrived at a compromise whereby it was agreed between the parties that the appellant will pay a sum of Rs.51,800/- as the lease money to the plaintiff but in order to secure the payment of said amount and to pressurize the appellant, he was made to execute the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and thus, in this way the agreement to sell was prepared under coercion. It is the specific case of the appellant that he had not received any earnest money in cash nor he agreed to sell the land. Other averments were denied. Ultimately, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: RSA No.1951 of 2009 (O&M) 3 “1. Whether defendant executed an agreement to sell dated 16.5.2000 and received Rs.1,03,500/- as earnest money? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff in alternative, entitled for recovery of Rs.2,07,000/- as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file present suit? OPD 5. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 6 Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD 7. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts? OPD 8. Relief.” On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff observing that the defendant executed the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff having received the earnest money of Rs.1,03,500/- and that the plaintiff- respondent was able to prove the valid execution of the document and was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Issue No.3 was held to have become redundant as the trial Court observed that the plaintiff was entitled to the specific performance of the agreement. Issues No.4,5, 6 and 7 were decided against the defendant for want of any evidence and having not been pressed. As a result of the findings given on the aforesaid issues, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for the specific performance of the agreement in question. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of RSA No.1951 of 2009 (O&M) 4 the trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 9.8.2008. While dismissing the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court observed that the appellant had failed to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff-respondent establishing the valid execution of the agreement to sell in question and further accepting the earnest money. The Lower Appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the trial Court that the appellant had failed to establish his plea that agreement to sell in question was the outcome of any coercion practiced upon him by the plaintiff-respondent. Still not satisfied, the appellant has approached this Court by way of instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that execution of the agreement in question in favour of the plaintiff-respondent stood proved and the appellant failed to establish his plea to the effect that the aforesaid agreement was a result of coercion practiced upon him. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant was unable to find fault with the concurrent findings as aforesaid, recorded by the Courts below and failed to show that the findings of the Courts below suffer from any perversity. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. August 18, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE RSA No.1951 of 2009 (O&M) 5