RSA No.2480 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2480 of 2011 Date of decision: 30.5.2011 Mukhtiar singh petitioner vs Santa Singh respondent Present:- Mr. BS Sidhu, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI The suit of the plaintiff- appellant for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 16.5.2003 with regard to 1/18th share in the land measuring 252 kanal 13 marla was decreed by the trial court. The lower appellate court has modified the decree passed in faovur of the plaintiff by granting an alternative relief for return of Rs.48,000/- out of the earnest money of Rs.98,000/- after adjusting a sum of Rs.50,000/- alleged to have been returned vide receipt Ex.D1. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the lower appellate court has wrongly exercised the discretion u/s 20 of the Specific Relief Act ( for short ' the Act'). Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that receipt Ex.D1 regarding the return of sum of Rs.50,000/- by the defendant to the plaintiff has not been proved. He has also argued that when a legal notice was sent to the defendant, in reply filed by him, no plea was taken regarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- out of the earnest money, having been returned to the plaintiff. Besides this, it has been urged that it is the general RSA No.2480 of 2011 2 practice that any refund of money out of the earnest money, is recorded at the back of the agreement of sale. In the present case, no revenue stamp has been affixed on the Ex.D1, making it admissible. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully considered the copy of the receipt Ex.D 1, which has been made a ground to arrive at conclusion that a sum of Rs.50,000/- had been returned out the earnest money received by the defendant- respondent. I have also carefully gone through the judgments of the courts below. The courts below have relied upon the statement of Jagsir Singh DW 2, who is an attesting witness to the receipt Ex.D1 as well as the agreement of sale. The plaintiff had refused to acknowledge his signatures on receipt Ex.D1 but the defendant has produced the hand writing expert to establish the signatures of Mukhtiar Singh plaintiff-appellant. The finding of fact arrived at by the courts below regarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- having been returned to the plaintiff, out of the earnest money of Rs.98,000/- does not deserve any interference. Besides this, the lower appellate court has fairly exercised the discretion u/s 20 of the Act to arrive at a conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining earnest money and not the specific relief under the Act. Dismissed. May 30 , 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE