RSA No.1323 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1323 of 2008 Date of Decision:25.4.2008 Jaswinder Singh ...Appellant Versus Suba Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.R.S.Aulakh, Advocate for the appellant -.- PERMOD KOHLI, J.(ORAL) This is defendant's second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 1.12.99 or alternative suit for recovery of Rs. 2,25,000/-. As per terms of the agreement, the sale-deed was to be executed on or before 10.12.2000. An amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- was paid as earnest money and the sale deed was to be made @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. The defendant denied the execution of the agreement to sell and also pleaded that he was having some business transaction for the purchase of pesticides with the plaintiff and during the course of those business transactions some blank papers had been obtained by the plaintiff and the document seems to be false and fabricated on the basis of those documents and further pleaded that he has no exclusive interest in the suit property and is only a co-sharer. The trial court framed following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 11.12.1999, as prayed for? OPP. 2. In the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 2,25,000/- along with interest as damages and compensation, as prayed for? OPP 2-A. Whether defendant entered into an agreement for sale of RSA No.1323 of 2008 2 suit land in favour of plaintiff on 11.12.1999 for consideration of Rs.2,25,000/-? OPP 2-B. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement and is still ready and willing to do so? OPP. 3. Relief. While considering the issues No.1 and 2 A, the trial court relied upon the evidence of scribe who not only himself appeared as a witness, but also the produced register, which show entry regarding the agreement and also the signatures of the defendant on the register. One of the marginal witness of the document namely Joginder Singh was produced by the defendant who stated that the document had not been scribed. However, both the courts disbelieved the testimony of this witness and on the basis of the evidence, the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 8.4.2005 decreed the suit with specific performance. The court also held that the defendant has failed to establish that he is not the exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the defendant preferred an appeal in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Faridkot. The Appellate Court after examining material on record concurred with the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 5.2.2008. Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the appellant on the testimony of Joginder Singh, witness. It is argued that this witness is truthful person and he had appeared on behalf of defendant to say the truth. Both the courts have disbelieved his testimony. It is a question of appreciation of the evidence and no interference is warranted. No interference in appreciation of evidence is permissible under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure by the High Court. No substantial question of law has been pointed out in the appeal. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 25.4.2008 (Permod Kohli) mk Judge RSA No.1323 of 2008 3