R. S. A. No. 348 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 348 of 2009 Date of Decision : October 07, 2010 Sohan Lal Aggarwal .... Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. O. P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff Sohan Lal Aggarwal has filed the instant second appeal. The plaintiff-appellant filed suit against the defendant- respondents i.e. State of Punjab and General Manager, District Industries Center, Ferozepur. Case of the plaintiff is that industrial shed No.B-2, Industrial Area, Ferozepur was allotted to the plaintiff on 01.10.1973. Agreement between the parties regarding the same was executed on 31.03.1975. There was dispute between the parties regarding price of the R. S. A. No. 348 of 2009 2 said property and interest etc. Arbitrator was appointed in the matter. Arbitrator gave award dated 02.04.1979. Plaintiff filed objections against the said award. Civil court, vide order dated 17.02.1986, set aside the award and directed the Arbitrator to enter upon the dispute again and to give separate awards regarding two separate properties i.e. shed no.B-1 and shed no.B-2. The Arbitrator gave award dated 06.12.1988. The plaintiff filed objections against the said award. Civil court held the award to be void vide order dated 01.03.1999, which has attained finality. The plaintiff in the suit alleged that a sum of Rs.20,342/-, as calculated up to 31.03.2000, remained payable by him towards the price of the disputed shed, along with further interest @ 4.50% per annum on basic price of Rs.8,444/-. The plaintiff accordingly sought declaration and mandatory injunction directing the defendants to execute sale deed of the disputed shed on payment of said balance amount. The defendants inter alia pleaded that the plaintiff did not deposit the balance amount of Rs.38,950/- plus interest and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to get the conveyance deed of the disputed shed in his favour. The plaintiff violated terms and conditions of the agreement dated 31.03.1975. The plaintiff was required to deposit hire purchase amount of Rs.44,064/- in 15 years, but the plaintiff deposited Rs.5114.70 paise only and the balance amount of Rs.38,950/- was payable by the plaintiff along with interest thereon. The defendants pleaded that if the R. S. A. No. 348 of 2009 3 plaintiff paid the said amount, then the conveyance deed can be executed in his favour regarding the suit property. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur, vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2008, decreed the plaintiff's suit directing the defendants to execute conveyance deed of disputed shed in favour of plaintiff after receiving Rs.26816/- as the sale price thereof with interest @ 4½% per annum w.e.f. 31.03.1975 till actual payment. The defendants were also directed to return pass book of the plaintiff after receipt of the aforesaid amount. Both parties preferred first appeals against judgment and decrees of the trial court. Learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, vide common judgment dated 04.08.2008, dismissed both the appeals. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Both the courts below, after analysing the evidence led by both the parties, have come to concurrent finding that the tentative price of Rs.44,064/- fixed by the defendants for disputed shed was correct. It included Rs.22,139/- as the basic price, which, as set up by the defendants, was accepted as against plaintiff's claim of Rs.19,978/- being the basic price. Courts below have made calculation of the basic price as per evidence led by the parties. Out of total tentative price of Rs.44,064/-, the plaintiff has already paid Rs.17,248/-. After deducting the same, the R. S. A. No. 348 of 2009 4 plaintiff has been held liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.26,816/-, with agreed interest @ 4½% per annum. There is thus no infirmity in the finding of the courts below. Even learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality in the aforesaid finding. Both the courts below have appreciated the evidence in right perspective and concurrent finding recorded by the courts below is supported by cogent reasons and is justified by the evidence on record. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. For the reasons recorded herein before, I find no merit in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. October 07, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE