1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3559 of 2008 (O&M). Date of Decision: 24.2.2009 *** Ram Swaroop .. Appellant VS. Laxminarain & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. After having lost concurrently before the two Courts below the defendant has approached this Court through this regular second appeal and has laid challenge to the judgments and decrees passed by the the trial court as well as first appellate court dated 23.2.2005 and 12.6.2008 respectively, by dint of which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Sanwal Ram (since deceased), the predecessor-in-interest of respondents, for specific performance has been decreed and the defendant-appellant has been directed to execute the sale-deed on receipt of balance sale consideration. It is apparent that both the courts below, on the strength of evidence produced by the plaintiff in the shape of testimonies of PW1 Ravi Shankar, PW2 Bhola Ram Bhardwaj, PW3 Ramanand Sharma, who scribed the agreements Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3/1 respectively coupled with the evidence of PW4 Khushal Chand, PW9 Harish Chander, the attesting witnesses and that of plaintiff himself and other witnesses, concurrently held the due execution of agreements to sell executed by defendant in favour of Sanwal Ram in respect of two shops on receiving earnest money of Rs.75200/- from time to time and the possession of the same was also delivered to the plaintiff who being the prospective vendee further rented out the same to Krishan Kumar and Dhiraj and it is the defendant who failed to perform his part of the contract despite issuance of legal notice by the 2 plaintiff, who remained ready and willing throughout to perform part of his contract. Although, an attempt was made by the defendant to plead that the said agreements cannot be enforced as the suit properties were ancestral in his hand, but the evidence produced in this regard i.e. mutations, which do not confer any title, were found short to prove the nature of the suit properties as ancestral one. Besides this, the said plea stand belied from the fact that the son of defendant had also sold out one shop and thus, it was held that if a son can sell a shop out of the joint Hindu family property then there is no bar for a father to sell the suit shops. The findings arrived at by both the courts below need no interference. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 24,2009 Jiten