RSA No. 2238 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2238 of 2007 Decided on : 14-01-2009 Mahla Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Angrej Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. D.D.Bansal, Advocate for the appellant Mr. S.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondent. MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal is directed against the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 7.5.2007 by which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,24,000/- with costs and with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant for possession through specific performance of agreement to mortgage dated 19.6.1998 regarding land measuring 57 kanals 4 Marlas and alterantively prayed that the suit for recovery of Rs. 3,65,000/- be passed in his favour. It was pleaded that this agreement dated 19.6.98 was between appellant and the respondent. It was further pleaded by the respondent that appellant was taking loans from him from time to time and was executing such agreements and since the loan had not been paid he prayed for execution of the agreement by virtue of the suit. RSA No. 2238 of 2007 2 The appellant who contested the suit admitted that he had obtained a loan of Rs. 1,24,000/- and as security the plaintiff had executed the aforesaid agreement, but he had further pleaded that he had repaid the loan. The Trial Court after framing the following issues, dismissed the suit by observing that the suit was beyond limitation:- 1. Whether on 19.6.1998 the defendant entered into an agreement to mortgage his land fully described in the heading of plaint with the plaintiff against the sum of RS. 3,65,000/-? OPP 2. Whether the defendant has received Rs. 3,65,000/- from the plaintiff as money? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff was always ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP 4. Whether agreement to mortgage in question was executed collateral security against Rs. 1,24,000/- payable to the plaintiff by the defendant? OPD 5. Whether the defendant has paid Rs. 1,80,000/- to the plaintiff in the presence of Bant Singh and Karnail Singh? OPD 6. Relief. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings and came to the conclusion that the appellant had admitted the obtaining of loan of Rs. 1,24,000/- but his plea regarding repayment has not been substantiated by any material on record. On the contrary, evidence led by the respondent- plaintiff regarding the execution of the agreement was inspiring and therefore, concluded that agreement stood proved. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of the First Appellate Court to contend that there is no evidence to the effect that RSA No. 2238 of 2007 3 an agreement had been entered into. He also contended that the agreement dated 19.7.98 is not inspiring as there was no occasion for the appellant to execute such agreement during that period. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgements, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal filed by the appellant is without any merit. Purely questions of facts have been raised in the present appeal which have already been determined by the Court below. The appellant has failed to substantiate his plea of repayment by any cogent evidence on record, even though he has admitted the obtaining of loan of Rs. 1,24,000/-. The decree has been limited to this amount only and therefore in the absence of any material to the contrary, the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court cannot be faulted with. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen in the present appeal and the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. January 14 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge