IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 664 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 5, 2011. Teja Singh. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Surjit Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Avtar Singh Bhatti, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 05.12.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant was partly accepted and the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya decreeing the suit of respondent-plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance was modified to the extent that relief of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell was declined and however, alternative relief for recovery of `20,000/- alongwith interest was allowed. RSA No.664 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed suit for a decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 29.06.1997 on the plea that present appellant-defendant executed agreement dated 31.12.1996 after receiving `20,000/- and the sale deed was to be executed on or before 30.06.1997. However, appellant-defendant did not execute the same and fresh agreement dated 26.09.1997 was executed by the present appellant-defendant acknowledging his liability of earlier agreement dated 31.12.1996. In the alternative suit for recovery of `40,000/- was prayed. On notice being issued, appellant-defendant denied having executed the said agreement. Rather plea was taken that he had executed the said document just as a security for loan of `20,000/- borrowed from respondent-plaintiff. It was also contended that the said loan was returned to respondent-plaintiff on 29.06.1997. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. Appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against the said judgment and decree was partly accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur by modifying the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court to the extent that the relief of possession by way of specific 2 RSA No.664 of 2011 performance of agreement was declined and however, alternative relief for recovery of `20,000/- alongwith interest was allowed. Sufficient evidence has been adduced by respondent-plaintiff to prove execution of agreement, Ex.P2 and receipt of earnest money of `20,000/- by present appellant-defendant. Execution of the said document has been admitted by present appellant. His plea was only that his signatures/thumb impression was taken on the said document by respondent- plaintiff when he allegedly borrowed `20,000/- from the plaintiff. However, no evidence was adduced by present appellant-defendant in order to prove the said assertion. There is only self-serving statement of present appellant- defendant on the point. Moreover, learned appellate Court on appreciation of evidence did not grant relief of specific performance and alternative relief of recovery of `20,000/- has only been granted. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both 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 mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this 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. 3 RSA No.664 of 2011 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 5, 2011. JUDGE ‘om’ 4