R.S.A. No. 89 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 89 of 2010 Date of Decision: February 22, 2011 Waryam Singh …..Appellant Vs. Ram Kumar …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the lower Appellate Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff- appellant for recovery. The trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff- appellant for recovery believing that the defendant had been leased out the land measuring 4½ acres pursuant to an agreement Ex.P1. It was believed by the trial Court that the lease was for a sum of ` 70000/- per annum. The lower R.S.A. No. 89 of 2010 [2] Appellate Court has declined to rely upon the agreement Ex.P1 purporting to be an agreement of lease for two years, on the following grounds:- i) There is no date, month or year of execution of initial agreement of giving of land on lease to the defendant- respondent in Ex.P1; ii) Agreement Ex.P1 contains a recital of delivery of possession back to the plaintiff- appellant as on May 15, 2002 but it is not understood as to how the possession was delivered amongst prior to the expiry of lease period; iii) Agreement Ex.P1 is executed on stamp paper which was allegedly purchased from Panchkula whereas the subject matter of the dispute is situated in Tehsil Jagadhri; iv) The details of the land and measurement of the same is not mentioned in the agreement Ex.P1 making it vague; v) The attesting witness of Ex.P1, namely, Gian Singh, happens to be the real brother of the plaintiff as such his credibility stands impeached; vi) No payment seems to have been passed hands as per Ex.P1, besides this, there is no evidence that the defendant- respondent had ever acknowledged liability to pay any lease money to the plaintiff; R.S.A. No. 89 of 2010 [3] vii) Details of the other attesting witnesses is also not mentioned in Ex.P1 as the original Ex.P1 does not contain the typed names and addresses of the witnesses; viii) It stands proved that signatures of defendant- respondent had been obtained on Ex.P1 on blank papers as pleaded and established by him. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff- appellant at length and I am of the opinion that there is a family relationship between the plaintiff and respondent being uncle and nephew. The document Ex.P1 has been disbelieved by the lower Appellate Court. The finding of fact arrived at by the lower Appellate Court does not warrant any interference for the detailed reasons given by the lower Appellate Court. No ground is made out for interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court. Dismissed. February 22, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE