RSA No.4720 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4720 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.7.2010 Balbir Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Renu Gupta and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents for possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of agreement to sell in question was decreed. As per the averments made in the suit, the appellant entered into an agreement to sell the property in dispute to one Satish Gupta vide agreement dated 13.9.2001 for a total consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- out of which the appellant received a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as earnest money. It was further agreed between the parties that the sale deed shall be executed upto 12.4.2002 while the remaining balance amount shall be paid at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. It was the further case of the plaintiff-respondents that unfortunately Satish Gupta was killed on 27.3.2002. However, the respondents who came to know about the agreement to sell in question went to the appellant and requested him to execute the sale deed. Even the plaintiff-respondents were present before RSA No.4720 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the Sub Registrar on the stipulated date i.e. 12.4.2002 along with the balance sale consideration and the necessary expenses; however, the appellant failed to turn up. Left with no alternative, the present suit was filed. The suit was resisted by the appellant taking up the defence that he never executed the agreement to sell with Satish Gupta and the alleged agreement was forged, false and fabricated document. After considering the evidence on record and the arguments raised by counsel for the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents. Appeal filed by the defendant before the Lower Appellate Court challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed Still not satisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence on record have recorded a finding of fact that the execution of the agreement in question stood proved on record and the appellant had failed to prove the fraud as alleged by him. It is well settled that if the particulars of the allegations of fraud have not been properly pleaded and proved as required by law, the plea of fraud must fail. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to support the appeal on the basis of any material evidence on record. There is pure findings of question of facts which cannot be gone into while exercising the powers under Section 100 of the CPC especially when there is no perversity in appreciation of evidence pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. RSA No.4720 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. July 2, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE