IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 5263-C of 2008 and RSA No.1672 of 2008 Date of decision : July 01, 2008 Lachhman Dass ..... Defendant/Appellant Versus Surender Pal & Others ..... Plaintiffs/Respondents Present : Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate for the defendant/appellant. *** S.S. SARON, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 5263-C of 2008 Heard counsel for the applicant/appellant. For the reasons stated in the C.M. application which is supported by affidavit of the counsel, the delay of 153 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. RSA No. 1672 of 2008 This appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal whereby his appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal has been dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent Mohan Lal (since deceased and now represented by his LRs) filed a suit seeking a decree for specific performance of C.M. No. 5263-C of 2008 and [2] RSA No.1672 of 2008 contract of the agreement dated 30.06.1984. In terms of the said agreement, the defendant-appellant had agreed to sell his shop constructed on plot No.6 bearing MCK No.406/17 along with verandah in front of the said shop measuring 20' x 7½' situated at Kaithal. It was alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that the possession of the said shop was already with him in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement dated 30.06.1984 and he continued to be in possession. Besides, he had paid the entire amount of the sale consideration amounting to Rs.30,000/- to the defendant. It was also alleged that the plaintiff-respondent was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, the defendant, after the shop was allotted to him by the Improvement Trust, Kaithal, executed a sale deed dated 11.06.2004 in favour of Bhim Sain. The said sale deed was executed during the pendency of the suit which was filed on 29.01.1998. The defendant-appellant, in response, took the stand that the transaction between the parties was in fact for the purposes of securing the loan that had been advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant as both were good friends. The agreement in fact was never intended to be acted upon by the parties and therefore, it was a sham transaction. It was also alleged that the market value of the suit property was not less than Rs.1.5 lacs and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance even if the aforesaid agreement dated 30.06.1984 was proved. Both the Courts below have concurrently held the agreement dated 30.06.1984 to be duly proved. It was also held that possession of the suit property was with the plaintiff since the time of the agreement. Therefore, it was for the defendant to execute the necessary sale deed. The plea of the defendant-appellant with regard to the suit being time barred was also negatived and it was held that the suit was not barred by limitation. As regards the C.M. No. 5263-C of 2008 and [3] RSA No.1672 of 2008 transfer of the shop by the defendant-appellant in favour of Bhim Sain, the learned lower appellate Court considered this aspect and held that the same was hit by the principle of lis pendens. Besides, it was also held that sale deed dated 11.06.2004 executed by the defendant-appellant in favour of Bhim Sain was of no avail in the present facts and circumstances of the case. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and also perusing the record, it may be noticed that both the Courts below have reached at concurrent findings of fact that the agreement dated 30.06.1984 was duly executed between the parties and that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property in pursuance of the said agreement. Even the question of limitation was decided against the defendant-appellant. In the circumstances, there is no question of law involved in the present appeal. As such, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) July 01, 2008 JUDGE amit