RSA No.5156 of 2010 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.5156 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 07.03.2011 Joginder Singh ……Appellant Versus Jaswinder Kaur …...Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. G.P.S. Bal, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.15188-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.15189-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main appeal. Defendant-Joginder Singh having lost in both the Courts below, has come up by way of instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff–Jaswinder Kaur filed suit against defendant-appellant for possession of suit land measuring 1 kanal 3 marlas by specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 28.07.1995. Plaintiff’s case is that the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the defendant for Rs.1,00,000/- and received Rs.50000/- as earnest money and executed agreement dated 28.07.1995. The RSA No.5156 of 2010 (O & M) - 2 - defendant committed breach of the agreement whereas plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Defendant inter alia pleaded that he had taken loan of Rs.50000/- from the plaintiff and executed receipt for the same, but the receipt was given the shape of agreement to sell. The defendant never agreed to sell the suit land nor received earnest money. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dasuya vide judgment and decree dated 11.01.2005 decreed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by the defendant stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Agreement in question stands admitted by the defendant by pleading that he had executed the said agreement as receipt, but it was given the shape of agreement. The plaintiff has examined Ram Lok PW-1 and Ram Lal P W-2 both attesting witnesses of the impugned agreement dated 28.07.1995. Amrik Singh PW-3 is attesting witness of writing dated 29.10.1998 whereby date for execution of the sale deed was extended. All the said witnesses have supported the plaintiff’s case. The plaintiff herself appeared in the witness box as PW-4 and stated according to her version. On the other hand, defendant himself appeared in the witness box and stated according to his version. The defendant also examined an RSA No.5156 of 2010 (O & M) - 3 - official from the office of sub-Registrar. He produced Collector’s rate of land for the year 2004-05. Plaintiff has led cogent evidence to prove his case. Both attesting witnesses of the impugned agreement have deposed in her favour. The plaintiff herself has also stepped into the witness box. Attesting witness of the writing regarding extension of sale deed has also supported the plaintiff’s case. Defendant’s solitary, self serving oral statement is not sufficient to rebut the aforesaid evidence of the plaintiff. On the other hand, defendant’s admission of execution of the document which is clearly an agreement to sell further strengthens the plaintiff’s case. Defendant’s self serving statement is not sufficient to prove his version that he had only taken loan and had not agreed to sell the suit land. Concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below in favour of plaintiff-respondent is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by reasons recorded by the courts below. The said finding is not demonstrated to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequenlty, the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that market price of the suit land at the time of impugned agreement was around Rs.10,00,000/- and, therefore, the defendant could not have agreed to sell the same for Rs.1,00,000/- only. The contention cannot be accepted for lack of any evidence to substantiate the same. Neither evidence of any sale instance has been produced in support of its contention nor there is any other documentary evidence. Oral statement of the defendant would not be sufficient to establish this RSA No.5156 of 2010 (O & M) - 4 - fact. On the contrary, defendant got produced collector’s rate of land for the year 2004-05, but the agreement is dated 28.07.1995. It is surprising that the defendant did not get the Collector’s rate of land for the year 1995 produced in evidence. Consequently, adverse inference arises against defendant for withholding the said evidence. No sale deed has either been produced in evidence to depict that market price of the suit land was more than that stipulated in the impugned agreement. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 07.03.2011 A.kaundal