-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 122 of 2011 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 13, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 122 of 2011 (O&M). Sukhwinder Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Manjit Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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 ? Present: Mr.Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Defendant-appellant Sukhwinder Singh is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent Manjit Singh against the defendant-appellant for specific performance of agreement dated 20.7.2004 in respect of the land in dispute was decreed and the defendant-appellant was directed to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 122 of 2011 (O&M). the plaintiff-respondent on the deposit of the balance sale consideration by the plaintiff-respondent. Further, the defendant- appellant was restrained from alienating the suit land in any manner in favour of any one else except the plaintiff-respondent. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by both the parties, have came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-defendant has been successful in proving that on 20.7.2004, the defendant-appellant, being the owner in joint possession of the suit land measuring 11 Kanals 13 Marlas, had agreed to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff-respondent for a consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre (8 Kanals). The defendant- appellant had received Rs.1,10,000/- as earnest money and had agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent upto 25.1.2005 on payment of the balance sale consideration. Accordingly, the plaintiff was held entitled to joint possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.7.2004. The defendant-appellant could not produce any evidence on record to show that the said agreement to sell was forged or a fabricated document or it was the result of fraud or misrepresentation. The plaintiff-respondent proved on record that he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. In fact, filing of the suit by the plaintiff-respondent itself showed that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that such findings -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 122 of 2011 (O&M). are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 13, 2011. JUDGE ak