IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second A-ppeal No. 2395 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 3, 2009 Sandeep and others ....Appellants Versus Daya Nand and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Alongwith the present appeal, this Court also intends to dispose of RSA No. 2396 of 2009 as both of them are between the same parties and arising out of similar agreements to sell dated 16.8.1995. However, for facility of reference, the facts have been taken from the present appeal. Suit filed by Daya Nand-respondent for relief of possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 16.8.1995, or, in the alternative, for the refund of double the amount of earnest money with interest, and, for declaring the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1995 as well as mutation No.2394, was decreed with costs by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, on October 1, 2002. Decree for possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of the agreement was granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The latter were directed to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff within 30 days of the deposit of the balance sale consideration of Rs.45,625/- after deducting costs of the suit, failing which the plaintiff was given liberty to get the sale deed executed RSA No. 2395 of 2009 -2- through the Court. Aggrieved of the same, the present appellants filed the first appeal, which was dismissed with costs by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, on March 12, 2007. Hence, the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While decreeing the suit filed by Daya Nand-respondent No.1, learned Courts below relied upon the evidence of Deed Writer, who scribed and drafted the agreement to sell. Entry in respect of the said document appeared in his register. Said Scribe deposed about the reading over of the contents of the documents to Umed Singh, who admitted the same as correct and appended his signatures in English besides vouchsafing the fact regarding receipt of earnest money by him. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the plaintiff did not examine the marginal witnesses to prove the agreement to sell. As per the plaintiff, Wazir Singh and Rajesh had witnessed the execution of the agreement. Said Wazir Singh was examined by the defendants as DW2. He did not deny his signatures on agreement Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2. He also admitted the thumb impression of Rajesh on this document. His plea that his signatures were obtained by Daya Nand in the room of some police officer has been rejected by the Courts below on the ground that the same was beyond the pleadings. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the property in question was coparcenary property and Umed Singh was having no right to enter into an agreement to sell the same without any legal necessity. RSA No. 2395 of 2009 -3- It has come in the testimony of one Umed Singh PW5, who was Secretary, Cooperative Bank that Umed Singh had raised an amount of Rs.25,790/- by way of loan. As per PW6 Ghanshyam, Clerk from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani, the arrears of land revenue amounting to Rs.53,584/- were outstanding against Umed Singh. Under these circumstances, the agreement to sell has been rightly found to have been executed by Umed Singh on account of legal necessity of clearing the outstanding debts. Even otherwise, no witness has been examined by the defendants to establish that the suit land was ancestral land or coparcenary property of Umed Singh. There was, thus, no bar upon Umed Singh to enter into any agreement to sell. The judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below in granting the relief to the plaintiff in both the suits do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed in the second appeals, which are maintainable only on a substantial question of law and not otherwise. The substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellants, do not arise for determination. As both the appeals are without any merit, they are, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 3, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1