R.S.A No.1399 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : October 27, 2009 1. R.S.A No.1399 of 2007 2. R.S.A No.1400 of 2007 Ajit Singh and another vs Hawa Singh *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sandeep K.Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 (Oral) This order shall dispose of RSA Nos.1399 and 1400 of 2007, as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from RSA No.1399 of 2007. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court partly modifying the judgment of the trial Court and thereby holding that out of the shamlat land, the respondent was owner of land measuring 7 kanals 5 marlas, and consequently partly decreeing the suit with respect to this parcel of land. With respect to the said land, the appellants had claimed that they were in possession in part performance of R.S.A No.1399 of 2007 ::2:: an agreement to sell. The lower appellate Court found that neither possession was given under the alleged agreement nor was the agreement itself proved and, thus, decreed the suit of the respondent to that extent. The following questions have been proposed :- “ (a) Whether the findings recorded by the learned Courts below, the plaintiff who has filed a suit for declaration and possession specifically admitting the possession of the defendant in para No.3 of the plaint, could be sustained holding the plaintiff to be in possession of the land in dispute ? (b) Whether the learned Courts below have decided the suit beyond the pleadings when the plaintiff has challenged the revenue entries and the sale deed of the year 1990 as null and void and has not produced any sale deed of the year 1990 ? (c) Whether the revenue entries can be challenged by the plaintiff on the basis of para 2 read with other averments and the prayer in the plaint ? (d) Whether the suit of the plaintiff could be decreed with the defendant-appellant were in possession of the same in part performance of the agreement to sell having protection under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act ?” The main question which has been argued is question No. (d). The plea of counsel for the appellants is that the appellants had not only paid 55% of the actual sale consideration at the time of agreement, they had R.S.A No.1399 of 2007 ::3:: also paid the remaining 45% amount subsequently. On fact, the lower appellate Court has found that the appellants have not been able to prove the agreement to sell in their favour. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court with regard to the execution of the agreement are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence as would require interference by this Court under Section 100 of the CPC. Questions No.(a), (b) and (c) are related questions. Once the seminal question with regard to execution of the agreement to sell is held against the appellants, these peripheral questions would not materially affect the decision of the appeal. Consequently, these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeals have since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. October 27, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI ) kk JUDGE