-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 2730 of 1988. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 06, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 2730 of 1988. Sadhu Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Phula Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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: Mr.Rajneesh Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Sadhu Singh (plaintiff-appellant) is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for possession in respect of the land in dispute by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 25.3.1981 was dismissed. -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 2730 of 1988. The facts, as can be gathered from the plaint, are that an agreement to sell the suit land for Rs.23,700/- was entered into between the plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent No.1 Phula Singh on 25.3.1981. As per terms of the said agreement, the sale deed was to be executed by Phula Singh in favour of Sadhu Singh (plaintiff-appellant) within one month of the agreement after attestation of the mutation with regard to this land in favour of Phula Singh by way of inheritance from his (Phula Singh's) father. However, Phula Singh (defendant- respondent No.1) executed the sale deed in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 7 on 10.8.1981 in order to defraud the plaintiff. It is alleged in the plaint that defendant No.1 had received Rs.23,700/- as earnest money from the plaintiff and the suit land was agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per acre. The plaintiff is still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Upon notice, defendant No.1 did not appear before the trial Court and he was proceeded ex parte. Defendants Nos. 2 to 7 contested the suit by filing written statement. They denied the execution of any agreement by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. They pleaded that they had purchased the land in dispute for consideration. Defendant No.1 had sold the said land to them for Rs.45,000/-. There was an agreement of sale dated 10.7.1981 between defendant No.1 and one Darshan Singh son of Jit Singh in respect of the suit land. Defendants Nos.2 to 7 had paid Rs.16,000/- -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 2730 of 1988. to Darshan Singh son of Jit Singh, which he had paid to Phula Singh (defendant No.1) as the earnest money for the purchase of the suit land and the said agreement dated 10.7.1981 was cancelled. Thereafter, sale deed in respect of the disputed land was executed in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 7 by defendant No.1. Defendants Nos. 2 to 7 alleged that they were bona fide purchasers and were in possession of the suit land. It was further averred that the plaintiff was in the habit of borrowing money from the residents of Mankheri and had executed some pronotes. The plaintiff, by entering into some conspiracy, might have managed to get the signatures or thumb impression of defendant No.1 on some blank papers. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and recording their evidence dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. The agreement dated 25.3.1981 (Annexure P-1) allegedly executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff, is on a plain paper. Chinta Singh (P.W.2) and Harnek Singh (P.W.3) are the attesting witnesses of the agreement Annexure P-1. Both of them stated that they did not see Phula Singh (defendant No.1) -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 2730 of 1988. after the execution of the said agreement. As stated above, the agreement Annexure P-1 is on a plain paper. However, in his cross-examination, Harnek Singh (P.W.3), the attesting witness, stated that “it is wrong to suggest that the agreement of sale was not written on stamp paper, but was on a plain paper”. Further, as has been noticed above, the land sought to be sold to the plaintiff by defendant No.1 in terms of the agreement in question, was not in the possession of defendant No.1 and it was to come to him from his father by way of inheritance afterwards. If the land was not in the possession of defendant No.1, it appears to be quite strange that the plaintiff would pay the entire sale consideration i.e Rs.23700/- to defendant No.1 at the time of execution of the agreement. These circumstances cast a serious doubt upon the genuineness of the agreement, the specific performance of which is sought by the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 06, 2011. JUDGE ak