RSA No.169 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 559-C of 2008 and RSA No.169 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: April 06 , 2010 Ajeet Singh ...... Appellant Versus Babu Ram and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Rajender Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 559-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded, delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.169 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for a specific performance of an agreement to sell with regard to land in dispute. The respondent No. 1 had also challenged the sale deed executed by the appellant in favour of the proforma respondenNo.2(his real brother). The appellant and the proforma respondent filed a joint written RSA No.169 of 2008(O&M) 2 statement denying the agreement to sell as a forged and fictitious document. Both the Courts on a consideration of the documents held that the agreement to sell was duly proved and consequently decreed the suit. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the learned courts below have failed to read the evidence in its true perspective? ii)Whether the learned courts below have illegally placed its reliance on inadmissible and non-reliable evidence of the respondent No.1 while ignoring well proved and admissible evidence of the appellant? iii)Whether the respondent No.2 was a bona fide purchaser for consideration without notice and was entitled to be protected under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act? iv)Whether the findings of the learned courts below regarding readiness and willingness without framing any issue to that effect and without evidence on record in favour of respondent No.1 are illegal? v) Whether a great manifest injustice has been caused to the appellant? It would be seen that questions No.(i) to (iv) are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the Courts below recorded thereon but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. While issuing notice of motion the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the appellant contends that here in the instant case, the Courts below have misread the evidence and terms and conditions contained in the agreement to sell dated 30.06.1997. Before filing the suit, he was bound to deposit the sale consideration in the Government treasury and RSA No.169 of 2008(O&M) 3 for that in order to show his bona fide, the respondents- plaintiffs were bound to move an application along with the suit seeking necessary permission in that behalf. He then submits that due to non-depositing of the required amount in terms of the agreement to sell, the respondents-plaintiffs could not have been held to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon Syed Dastgir versus T.P.Gopalakrishna Setty 2000(1) CCC 162(S.C.). Notice of motion for 22.09.2008. In the meantime, operation of the impugned judgment and decree shall remain stayed.” I have gone through the judgment cited. This has no applicability to the present case since it was stated that a plaintiff can always tender the balance consideration amount to show his readiness and willingness even without any order of the Court. There is no such situation arising in the present case. Consequently the appeal is dismissed. I, however, find that no time was fixed in the impugned decree within which respondent No.1 was to deposit the remaining consideration amount. Learned counsel has not been able to inform me whether any deposit has been made. In the circumstances if the deposit has not been made then I deem it appropriate to fix the time of two months from today Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc.applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 06, 2010 sunita