IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2448 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 7, 2011. Bahadur Singh. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Bakshish Singh. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Arya, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 27.01.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 05.06.2007 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Gurdaspur vide which suit filed by respondent- plaintiff was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.2448 of 2011 Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 07.05.2002 on the plea that he was always ready and still ready to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement and that however, appellant-defendant did not comply with the said agreement and did not get the sale deed executed in his favour as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Appellant- defendant denied having executed the said agreement of sale and having received earnest money of `1,50,000/-. Respondent-plaintiff in order to prove execution of the agreement in his favour by appellant-defendant, has examined both the attesting witnesses of the agreement, namely, Dalip Singh son of Jawand Singh, Lambardar of village Sekhwan as PW1 and Iqbal Singh son of Surjit Singh as PW2. He has also himself appeared as own witness as PW5 besides examining Deed Writer Narinder Mohan as PW4. He has also examined handwriting and finger print expert as PW6. On the other hand, there is self serving statement of appellant-defendant and evidence of handwriting and finger print expert, Sukhjinder Singh, DW2 who had deposed that questioned signatures of appellant-defendant on the agreement do not tally with the signatures present on the written statement filed by appellant/defendant. However, the expert examined by respondent-plaintiff compared the signatures of appellant-defendant with his admitted signatures present on the mortgage deed dated 16.10.1998 and she has given the report that signatures appeared on agreement to sell are the signatures of appellant- defendant. Moreover, evidence of handwriting and finger print expert is of opinion in nature. Hence, in view of overwhelming evidence adduced by 2 RSA No.2448 of 2011 respondent-plaintiff i.e. attesting witnesses and deed writer, both the courts came to the conclusion that the execution of agreement has been duly proved. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 7, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3