IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3740 of 2008 Date of decision : January 14, 2010 Shanti Devi and others ....Appellants versus Ram Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. PS Jammu, Advocate, for the appellants Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendants Shanti Devi and her two sons and a daughter, who have been unsuccessful in both the courts below, have filed the instant second appeal. Respondent Ram Singh filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.10.1999 entered into by Fateh Singh since deceased (predecessor of defendants). It is alleged that Fateh Singh vide agreement dated 15.10.1999 agreed to sell tractor No. HR-20E-1889 make Escort-335 to the plaintiff for Rs 1,80,000/-. The tractor stood hypothecated with bank for loan raised for purchase of the tractor. The plaintiff was to pay the outstanding amount of loan with interest. Possession of the tractor with Herro was also handed over to the plaintiff at the time of agreement and the plaintiff has been using the same since then. Regular Second Appeal No. 3740 of 2008 -2- The plaintiff alleged that he cleared the outstanding bank loan amount on 21.3.2004 and obtained certificate dated 26.6.2004 of cancellation of hire purchase agreement certifying the clearance of the bank loan amount. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the defendants to transfer the tractor in the name of the plaintiff. Defendants refused to do so. The defendants while admitting the agreement, interalia, pleaded that the plaintiff has not cleared the bank loan amount and in fact, the defendants have repaid the outstanding loan amount of the bank and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance of the agreement. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that loan amount of the bank was in fact paid by the defendants and not by the plaintiff and thus, the plaintiff himself violated the terms of the agreement and the plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to relief of specific performance of the agreement. The contention cannot be accepted because there is concurrent finding by both the courts below that the loan amount was cleared by plaintiff. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises regarding the said finding. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that the suit is time barred because the agreement is dated 15.10.1999 whereas the suit was instituted on 29.9.2004. The contention although apparently attractive is again without any substance. As per impugned agreement, a copy Regular Second Appeal No. 3740 of 2008 -3- whereof has been shown by counsel for the appellants himself, the tractor was to be transferred in the name of the plaintiff after clearance of bank loan. Admittedly, the bank loan was cleared in April, 2004 and therefore, the plaintiff became entitled to seek relief of specific performance in April, 2004 only and consequently, the suit filed on 29.9.2004 is well within limitation. In view of the aforesaid, I find no illegality in the judgments of the courts below. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) January 14, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'