IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3936 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 3.12.2008. Gurdass ....Appellant Versus Dilawar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr.Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. RAJESH BINDAL, J. **** Defendant No.7 is in appeal before this Court against concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below whereby the suit filed by respondent No.1 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated March 21,1997 was decreed with regard to land measuring 5 kanals 4 marlas being half share of 10 kanals 8 marlas, situated in village Phirni Majra, Tehsil and P.S. Balachaur, District Nawanshahar. Briefly the facts are that Parsa agreed to sell the aforesaid land vide agreement to sell dated March 21, 1997, for a total consideration of Rs. 2,34,000/- out of which Rs. 25,000/- was paid as earnest money. The last date fixed for execution of sale deed was 15.5.1997. The suit was filed on April 25, 1997. Besides praying for relief for specific performance even permanent injunction was sought restraining the respondent/defendants from executing RSA No.3936 of 2008 (O&M) -2- the sale deed in favour of any one else. During pendency of suit on May 15, 1997 Parsa executed the sale deed pertaining to the suit land in favour of appellant/defendant No.7. Before the Courts below, the appellant/respondent raised plea of being bonafide purchaser having no knowledge of agreement of sale executed by Parsa in favour of respondent No.1 on March 21,1997. However, the plea raised by the appellant was negated on the basis of evidence produced on record from which it was evident that Chuhar Singh Ex- sarpanch who is real uncle of the appellant, who had purchased the property from Parsa, was fully aware of the agreement to sell on March 21, 1997 executed in favour of respondent No.1. With a view to defraud the respondent No.1, an anti-dated agreement on a plain paper was prepared on the basis of which sale deed was got registered on May 15, 1997 in favour of appellant, during the pendency of the suit. The knowledge of the agreement to the appellant existing in favour of respondent No.1 is also evident from the fact that appellant as well as Chuhar Singh his uncle were having a joint khata of their land. The suit property is also situated in the same village where they were residing. It was on the basis of these facts that the Court came to the conclusion that the sale deed dated May 15, 1997 was executed with a view to defeat the rightful claim of respondent No.1 in a suspicious circumstance and scandalous manner. It was also noticed that the aforesaid sale deed was witnessed by Shangara Singh Lambardar of village who projected himself to be a lambardar of village Phirni Majra. From the facts on record it was clearly established that RSA No.3936 of 2008 (O&M) -3- the apprehension projected by respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking injunction and also specific performance even before the date fixed for execution of sale deed in his favour was right and the action of the appellant and respondent No.2/the vendor in getting the sale deed executed immediately after the filing of suit by respondent No.1/ plaintiff was just with a view to defraud the respondent No.1. Findings recorded by learned Court below are plain and simple findings of fact giving rise to no question of law much less a substantial question of law. The appeal is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 3.12.2008. JUDGE Reema