R.S.A No. 918 of 2003 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : November 17, 2008 1. R.S.A No.918 of 2003 Gurmit Kaur and another vs Ajit Kaur and others 2. R.S.A No.1189 of 2003 Kaka Singh and others vs Ajit Kaur *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr.S.S.Sodhi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondents. *** 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 This order shall dispose of R.S.A Nos.918 and 1189 of 2003, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from RSA No.918 of 2003. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court accepting the appeal of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance. The learned lower appellate Court accepted the agreement to sell dated 28.6.1996 in favour of respondent No.1 as well as receipt of Rs.68,000/- by Gurmail Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, R.S.A No. 918 of 2003 ::2:: out of a total consideration of Rs. one lac, considering that the scribe and one of the witnesses had appeared and that thereafter it was for the appellants to prove that the signatures were not those of Gurmail Singh. As far as the readiness and willingness of respondent No.1 was concerned, the learned lower appellate Court found that respondent No.1 appeared before the Sub Registrar on 30.6.1997, which was the last date agreed between the parties for the purpose of executing the sale deed. The learned lower appellate Court rejected the plea that the subsequent sale deed dated 10.7.1997, executed by the appellants, was preceded by an earlier agreement to sell dated 10.5.1994 on the ground that no reference to that agreement was made in the sale deed. It, thus, negatived the plea of the subsequent vendees regarding prior claim. As regards the alternative plea of bona fide purchase, the learned lower appellate Court found that the vendee was a near relative of the appellants and that the subsequent sale deed (for a lesser amount) was a fictitious document created to obstruct the claim of respondent No.1. The learned lower appellate Court further noticed that no consideration had passed at the time of the sale deed and the same had been executed only by one of the appellants who could not represent the entire interest of the aforesaid Gurmail Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that these findings of fact are perverse and can be held to be not arising from the evidence on record. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 17, 2008. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 918 of 2003 ::3::