RSA No. 3070 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3070 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.8.2009 Amarjit Singh ......Appellant Versus Randhir Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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: Shri G.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 10.2.2001, was decreed. Vide the aforesaid agreement, the defendant agreed to sell the land measuring 3 bighas 5 biswas @ Rs.42,000/- per bigha. A sum of Rs.3 lacs was paid as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 1.10.2001. However, vide writing dated 30.9.2001, the date for execution of the sale deed was extended upto 22.4.2003 on receipt of another sum of Rs.50,000/-. On 8.4.2003, the plaintiff called upon the defendant to execute the sale deed through a notice, but the defendant did not execute the sale deed. The plaintiff appeared before the Sub Registrar on the agreed date i.e., 22.4.2003. Still the defendant did not execute the sale RSA No. 3070 of 2009 (2) deed which led to the filing of the present suit for specific performance. In the written statement, the defendant took up a stand that the aforesaid agreement to sell was executed under pressure. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is a director of the firm, namely, Anmol India Pvt. Ltd., which is engaged in supply of coal on commission basis. There is a Samiti, namely, M/s Syan Gram Udyog Samiti, which runs brick kiln. The said Samiti requested for supply of coal for their brick kiln. The said Samiti was introduced to the plaintiff by the defendant, but since the Samiti did not make payment of the coal purchased, the plaintiff pressurised the defendant to execute the agreement to sell under police pressure and, therefore, the said agreement is without consideration and cannot be specifically enforced. The plaintiff examined R.K. Singla, deed writer as PW3, Sukhdev Singh, attesting witness of the agreement to sell as PW2. The plaintiff examined Manmohan Singh, his attorney as PW1. Plaintiff himself appeared as PW5. On the other hand, defendant examined himself as DW1 and also examined DW2- Ranbir Singh, the other attesting witness of the agreement. From the testimony of the witnesses examined, both the Courts have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the agreement to sell is proved to be executed. The Courts have also taken into consideration the statement of DW2 Ranbir Singh that even if the agreement dated 10.2.2001 was executed under pressure but there is no allegation of pressure to the endorsement made on 30.9.2001. The said witness has admitted in the cross- examination that he has not gone to the police station and that he has not given any application to the police officials and that the agreement was not obtained by the plaintiff under police pressure. RSA No. 3070 of 2009 (3) Both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the agreement to sell was executed by the defendant on 10.2.2001 after the same was read over to him on receipt of the earnest money. It has been further found that on 30.9.2001, the defendant received another sum of Rs.50,000/- and executed endorsement Exhibit P.3. Such finding is based upon appreciation of evidence. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are in the realm of re-appreciation of evidence. However, it could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 20.8.2009 ds