C.M.Nos.14680-81-C of 2010 in RSA No.4979 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.Nos.14680-81-C of 2010 in RSA No.4979 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: July 15, 2011 Balbir Singh .....Appellant v. Mehanga Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.A.SGill, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.14680-C of 2010 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 94 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.14681-C of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.4979 of 2010 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 29.10.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr, vide which appeal filed by appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 1.6.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nawanshahr, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by C.M.Nos.14680-81-C of 2010 in RSA No.4979 of 2010(O&M) -2- learned courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for a decree for specific performance of a contract dated 17.7.1995 regarding land measuring 8 kanal, situated at Village Garh Padhana, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr and for directing respondent no.1-defendant to execute sale deed in his favour and in the alternative for recovery of `2,00,000/-, i.e., `1,00,000/- as earnest money and `1,00,000/- as damages. Respondent no.1-defendant had taken specific plea that he had already taken a loan of `1,00,000/- from father of appellant-plaintiff and that an agreement was executed to repay the said loan amount during the period of three years and the possession of the land in dispute was taken by father of appellant-plaintiff in lieu of interest and that he was having right to repay the amount of `1,00,000/- within three years and to get back possession of the land. He has also filed application under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act and deposited `1,00,000/- in the Court and the appellant was directed to withdraw the same. In order to prove the execution of agreement to sell, appellant- plaintiff examined only a Deed Writer and his attorney. Even he did not appear as his own witness in the witness box. Scribe deposed that parties were not known to him. Attorney Avtar Chand also deposed that he was not present at the time of execution of the agreement and did not know about the terms and conditions of the agreement. No attesting witness of the alleged agreement was examined by the appellant- plaintiff. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that no evidence was adduced by respondent no.1-defendant. However, law is well settled that plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. It was for the C.M.Nos.14680-81-C of 2010 in RSA No.4979 of 2010(O&M) -3- plaintiff to prove the execution of the agreement to sell as per his assertions. Courts below have given sufficient reasons for disbelieving the version of appellant-plaintiff. As per version of appellant-plaintiff only `1,00,000/- were given as earnest money, whereas sale consideration was `4,00,000/- and the time to execute the agreement to sell was fixed as three years. It has been rightly observed by learned first appellate Court that it was never intended to be used as an agreement to sell on these facts. Rather it was to be used only as a collateral security. The amount has since been returned by respondent no.1-defendant. It may also be mentioned here that receipt Ex.P2 was also got executed by father of appellant-plaintiff, though it was not required to be in case it was a genuine transaction of agreement to sell. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 15.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge