Regular Second Appeal No. 640 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 640 of 2009 Date of Decision: 4.5.2009 *** Rupinder Singh .. Appellant VS. Smt. Malkiat Kaur & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. R.S. Badhran, Advocate. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is plaintiff's regular second appeal. Both the Courts below while decreeing his suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.6.1993, have held him entitled only to the alternative relief of Rs.40,000/-, the amount mentioned therein. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant this Court is of the considered view that no question of law warranting admission of the appeal arises for determination. Both the Courts below while analyzing the evidence produced and the circumstances brought on record, as discernible from paras No.9, 10 and 11 of the judgment rendered by the appellate Court below, concluded that the document dated 16.6.1993 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff was not an agreement to sell the property but was obtained by the plaintiff from her as a collateral security in connection with mortgage created on the same day in favour of Karnail Singh, the father of the plaintiff. While arriving to the said conclusion, it has been taken into consideration that on the same day defendant No.1 also executed a mortgage deed in favour of the father of the plaintiff and it has been observed that had the intention of defendant No.1 was to sell her land, she would not have mortgaged the land. Besides the recitals of Ex.D4 also strengthened the aforesaid findings wherein it is mentioned that executor/ defendant No.1 would take back the possession handed over to Rupinder Singh and Kirpal Singh, on repayment of the loan/ mortgage amount and Regular Second Appeal No. 640 of 2009 2 thus, the Courts below rightly concluded that had Malkiat Kaur agreed to sell the land to Rupinder Singh, this clause would not have been added. The contention that the approach of the Courts below in not returning specific findings qua the issue as to whether respondent No.2 was a bona fide purchaser or not? is bad in view of provisions of Order XX Rule 5 CPC, is not tenable because once the lis has been decided by holding that the document dated 16.6.1993 in fact was not an agreement and was a loan document, the issue of bonafide purchaser pales into insignificance, so far as the rights of the plaintiff are concerned, who has been held entitled to recovery of the amount mentioned in the instrument. Moreover, a plain reading of Order XX Rule 5 CPC makes it emphatically clear that if the Court is of the opinion that finding upon one or more issues is sufficient to decide the lis, it is not obligatory upon it to returning its finding or decision upon each separate issue. Thus, it cannot be said that there was non- compliance of provisions of Order XX Rule 5 CPC by the Courts below and that the approach of the Courts is either illegal or perverse. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view than the one recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal, is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 4,2009 Jiten