R. S. A. No. 1131 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1131 of 2011 Date of Decision : April 20, 2011 Jagsir Singh .... Appellant Vs. Gurjit Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. S. Salar, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant Jagsir Singh having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Suit was filed by plaintiff Makhan Singh (since deceased and represented by respondents as his legal representatives) against defendant- appellant for possession of the suit land by specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12.06.1997 alleging that the defendant, who is owner of the suit land measuring 43 kanals 06 marlas, agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and received Rs.3,00,000/- as earnest money and executed impugned agreement dated 12.06.1997. Sale R. S. A. No. 1131 of 2011 2 deed was to be executed up to 11.06.1998. On the said date, plaintiff appeared before Sub Registrar to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement, but the defendant did not turn up and committed breach of the agreement, whereas plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. The defendant alleged that he was not in need of money, and therefore, there was no necessity for him to sell the suit land to the plaintiff. Execution of impugned agreement and receipt of earnest money of Rs.3,00,000/- was also denied. The agreement was pleaded to be result of fraud and misrepresentation. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, vide judgment and decree dated 03.11.2007, decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff himself appeared as PW-1 and examined both attesting witnesses of the agreement namely Baljinder Singh (PW-2) and Rajinder Kumar (PW-4) and also scribe of the agreement namely Arjun Dev (PW-3). All of them broadly stated according R. S. A. No. 1131 of 2011 3 to the plaintiff's version. On the other hand, defendant himself stepped into the witness-box as DW-1 and examined his mother Nachhattar Kaur as DW- 2. They broadly stated according to the defendant's version. The plaintiff has led sufficient cogent and reliable evidence to prove his case. In addition to his own testimony, the plaintiff has examined both attesting witnesses of the agreement and also its scribe. They have all supported the plaintiff's case. The defendant in the written statement took vague plea that the agreement is result of fraud and misrepresentation, but did not mention any particulars of alleged fraud or misrepresentation. Statements of plaintiff's witnesses have not been rebutted by the interested statements of defendant and his mother. There is practically no evidence on record to depict that the impugned agreement is result of fraud and misrepresentation because self-serving oral statements of defendant and his mother are not sufficient to establish any fraud or misrepresentation, more particularly because even particulars of alleged fraud and misrepresentation have not been given. On the contrary, statements of plaintiff's witnesses depict that the agreement was duly executed by the defendant, who also received earnest money of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff at the time of the agreement. Statements of plaintiff's witnesses reasonably rule out any fraud or misrepresentation in the execution of the impugned agreement. From the aforesaid, it is manifest that plaintiff has successfully proved due execution of the agreement by the defendant and payment of R. S. A. No. 1131 of 2011 4 earnest money of Rs.3,00,000/- to him. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below to this effect is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by reasons recorded by the lower courts. The said finding is not shown to be illegal or perverse nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding cannot be interfered with in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. On the contrary, the said finding is the only reasonable view that can be taken of the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of specific performance as the suit was filed 2½ years after the date stipulated in the agreement for execution of sale deed. The contention cannot be accepted because the plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He even attended the office of Sub Registrar on 11.06.1998 to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement. Mere delay in filing the suit is not sufficient to decline the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, when the defendant even denied the execution of the impugned agreement. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that according to the agreement, possession of the suit land was also delivered to the plaintiff. However, in the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that if he is not found in possession, then relief of possession be also granted. R. S. A. No. 1131 of 2011 5 Consequently, suit has been rightly decreed for possession of the suit land and specific performance of the impugned agreement to sell. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. April 20, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE