RSA No. 2972 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.7.2009 (i) RSA No. 2972 of 2007. Ravel Singh ......Appellant Versus Lakhwinder Singh and others .......Respondents (ii) RSA No. 1758 of 2008. Narinder Singh ......Appellant Versus Lakhwinder Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri M.S. Joshi, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). This order shall dispose of RSA Nos.2972 of 2007 filed by Ravel Singh, defendant No.1 and RSA No. 1758 of 2008, filed by defendant Nos. 2, vendee from Ravel Singh. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale in pursuance of which sale deed dated 12.10.2000 was executed (but not registered) in respect of the land measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas. Both the Courts have decreed the suit and still aggrieved, the RSA No. 2972 of 2007 (2) defendants are the present Regular Second Appeals. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff-respondent that on 1.8.2000, defendant No.1 agreed to sell the land measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of Rs.1,10,000/- as earnest money. The total sale consideration was agreed to be Rs.2 lacs and the sale deed was to be executed on 29.21.2000. Subsequently, the plaintiff agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.2,30,000/- instead of Rs.2 lacs, as the sale deed was intended to be executed prior to the date agreed. In pursuance of such an oral agreement, the sale deed was executed by the defendant on 12.10.2000, but at the time of the execution of the sale deed, the defendant slipped away from the office of the Sub Registrar, which led to the filing of the present suit on 17.10.2000. To prove the execution of the agreement to sell dated 1.8.2000, the plaintiff has examined Ram Singh, Lambardar as PW1 and appeared as his own witness as PW2. PW3-Achhar Singh is the witness, who has scribed the sale deed dated 12.10.2000 (Exhibit PW3/1) and PW4 is the witness, who scribed the agreement to sell dated 1.8.2000. On the other hand, the defendant has examined himself as DW2 and his wife Manjit Kaur as DW1. Both the Courts have found that the agreement dated 1.8.2000 was executed and a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- was paid as earnest money. In fact, the learned first Appellate Court, has taken into consideration the evidence of the defendants, wherein they have disputed the execution of the sale deed on 12.10.2000, agreement to sell dated 1.8.2000 and receipt of earnest money of Rs.1,10,000/- in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 1.8.2000. RSA No. 2972 of 2007 (3) To prove the execution of the sale deed dated 12.10.2000. PW3- Achhar Singh, has deposed about the payment of earnest money, execution of sale deed sale deed. PW1 Ram Singh, Lambardar is the witness to both, agreement to sell dated 1.8.2000 and the sale deed dated 12.12.2000. Both the Courts have believed the statement of PW1 Ram Singh, Lambardar, and that of plaintiff to prove the payment payment of firstly the earnest money of Rs.1,10,000/- on 1.8.2000 and the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- on 12.10.2000. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has not disclosed any date of oral agreement to sell in respect of the property in dispute for the sum of Rs.2,30,000/-. Still further, there is no proof of the payment of sale consideration, when the sale deed was allegedly executed on 12.10.2000. In fact, the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses establishes that he has not paid any sale consideration at the time of execution of the sale deed on 12.10.2000. Therefore, the findings recorded are based upon misreading of evidence and thus, not sustainable. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has vehemently argued that the balance payment of Rs.1,20,000/- is not even recited to be paid in the presence of the attesting witness or the scribe on 12.10.2000 as the sale deed recites that the said payment has been received by the defendant at his home. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not factually correct. The question of payment has to be examined in two part. Firstly, payment of Rs.1,10,000/- at the time of execution of the agreement to sell on 1.8.2000. The said part is proved on the basis of testimony of Ram Singh, Lambardar, who has deposed about the payment of the RSA No. 2972 of 2007 (4) aforesaid amount in his presence. The said fact has neither been disputed by the defendant-Ravel Singh in his affidavit nor by his wife Manjit Kaur in her affidavit. Therefore, on the basis of evidence, the finding recorded by the Courts below that a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- was paid to the defendant Ravel Singh at the time of execution of the sale, cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted, in any manner. Then comes the next part regarding the payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- on 12.10.2000. The said question is again to be examined keeping in view the evidence led by the defendants and by the plaintiffs. It was the case of the defendants that Ravel Singh was made drunk and in the drunken state, his thumb impressions have been obtained on the sale deed. However, except his bald statement and that of his wife, there is no evidence of such allegation. There is no complaint made by the defendants to any of the authorities in respect of such forcible and unwarranted conduct of the plaintiff. The money is said to be paid to Ravel Singh at his home. Such are the statements of Lakhwinder Singh and Ram Singh, Lambardar. Both the the Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact on the appreciation of evidence. Such findings cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or material irregularity, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present Regular Second Appeals. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 28-07-2009 ds