RSA No.2926 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2926 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 17, 2011 Subhash .....Appellant v. Megh Raj .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.L.N.Verma, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 8.3.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 24.12.2008 passed by learned trial Court vide which suit filed by respondent-plaintiff seeking decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 31.3.1999, was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that respondent-plaintiff was to stand on his own legs and, however, respondent- plaintiff has failed to prove execution of agreement to sell and the receipt of earnest money as none of the attesting witnesses has been examined by him. Even the deed writer has deposed that earnest money was not paid in RSA No.2926 of 2011(O&M) -2- his presence. It is also contended that in fact, amount was taken by appellant-defendant as a loan and, however, writing was later on converted into an agreement to sell. It is also contended that he had already executed an agreement for sale of the land in dispute in favour of 3rd person and he also executed a sale deed in his favour. Though plea has been taken by present appellant-defendant that agreement to sell was not executed by him and that he had only executed a writing in view of taking of loan from the respondent-plaintiff, however, he has admitted his signatures on agreement Ex.P1 at points A to D. He has also admitted writing Mark E written in his own hand, vide which he has admitted to have received a sum of `68,000/- in the presence of witnesses as earnest money for selling the land in dispute. Hence, in view of this admission made on the part of present appellant-defendant and in view of the writing in his own hand that he has received the amount in the presence of witnesses as earnest money as consideration for execution of the sale-deed in favour of respondent- plaintiff, it cannot be said that respondent-plaintiff has failed to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell in his favour. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second RSA No.2926 of 2011(O&M) -3- appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 17.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge