RSA No. 4078 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 12379-C of 2009 and RSA No. 4078 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: November 11 , 2009 Rajinder and others ...... Appellants Versus Hukmi and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for Mrs.Manjari Nehru, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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. CM No. 12379-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded in the application, the deficiency in Court fee in filing the present appeal is made good. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 4078 of 2009 (O&M) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for recovery of earnest money with interest (instead of allowing the prayer for specific performance). Both the courts found that in fact the agreement to sell reflected a money transaction since the appellants were in dire need of RSA No. 4078 of 2009 (O&M) 2 money and that the respondents in that situation obtained an agreement to sell from the appellants. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the findings returned by both the learned courts below with regard to the return of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum by the appellant- defendants are a result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence available on record of the case? ii)Whether in the event of the alleged agreement to sell being declared a bogus and forged document at the hands of the plaintiff-respondent,relief of grant of Rs. 3,00,000/- alleged earnest money along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum can be sustained in the eye of law? Question No.(ii) as proposed would depend upon the answer to question No. (i). In my opinion the concurrent findings of the courts below with regard to receipt of the amount of Rs. 3 lacs cannot be said to be either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Once question No. (i) is decided against the appellant, question No. (ii) would necessarily have to go against him. Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 11 , 2009 sunita