-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 1068 of 2010 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: February 02,, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 1068 of 2010 (O&M). Smt.Rani and others ... Appellants VERSUS Jaimal Chand ... 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.P.S. Jammu, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The defendants-appellants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff- -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 1068 of 2010 (O&M). respondent for possession of the land measuring 8 Kanals 16 Marlas detailed in the plaint by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 3.10.2001 was decreed and the defendants-appellants were directed to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on his (plaintiff-respondent) paying the balance sale consideration, stamps, execution and registration charges. The defendants- appellants were directed to get the sale deed executed and registered within two months failing which the plaintiff-respondent would be at liberty to get the sale deed executed and registered through the Court. I have heard Mr.P.S. Jammu, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate, appearing for the respondent and have gone through the records of the case. Ranjha Ram (since deceased), predecessor-in-interest of the defendants-appellants, had agreed to sell land measuring 8 Kanals 16 Marlas (hereinafter referred to as the `suit land') to the plaintiff-respondent. Agreement dated 3.10.2001 to this effect was executed by Ranjha Ram. The suit land was agreed to be purchased by the plaintiff-respondent from Ranjha Ram at the rate of Rs.1.25 lac per acre and a sum of Rs.90,000/- had been paid by the plaintiff to Ranjha Ram as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed by Ranjha Ram in favour of the plaintiff- respondent on 20.11.2001. Later on, time for execution of the sale deed was extended upto 27.11.1001 by the mutual consent of the parties. An endorsement to this effect was made on the -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 1068 of 2010 (O&M). agreement. Ranjha Ram approached the plaintiff-respondent on 27.11.2001 and expressed his inability to get the sale deed executed due to some personal problems and promised to get the sale deed registered in a day or two. Believing the problem of Ranjha Ram to be genuine, the plaintiff-respondent did not get his presence marked in the office of the Sub Registrar and waited for the response of Ranjha Ram to get the sale deed registered. Later on, the plaintiff-respondent came to know that Ranjha Ram had played a fraud on him (plaintiff-respondent) and had got his (Ranjha Ram's) presence marked in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sirsa, to show that he was ready and willing to perform his (Ranjha Ram's) part of the agreement. The plaintiff then contacted Ranjha Ram, who started demanding Rs.1.50 lac per acre against the earlier settled price of Rs.1.25 lac per acre. The matter was taken to the Panchayat and could not be sorted out. The plaintiff-respondent sent a legal notice to Ranjha Ram on 15.6.2002 but to no effect. On 9.7.2002, the plaintiff contacted the Area Patwari for obtaining copies of latest Jamabandis and he thereafter came to know that Ranjha Ram (predecessor-in- interest of the defendants-appellants) had already transferred 25 Kanals 8 Marlas of land in favour of Satnam Chand, Milakh Raj and Ashok Kumar vide registered sale deed No.5146 dated 27.11.2001 and 13 Kanals 16 Marlas of land in favour of one Swaran Kaur daughter of Jagir Singh vide registered sale deed No.5145 dated 27.11.2001 and that land measuring 8 Kanals 16 Marlas only remained with him. The plaintiff-respondent, being ready and -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 1068 of 2010 (O&M). willing to perform his part of the agreement, filed the instant suit for possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 3.10.2001 and, in the alternative, for recovery of Rs.1,37,500/- on account of damages including earnest money together with interest. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. However, the lower appellate Court, on appeal by the plaintiff-respondent, decreed the suit of the plaintiff- respondent, as indicated above. On the other hand, the stand taken by Ranjha Ram defendant (since deceased) in his written statement was that, under the instructions of the plaintiff, he (Ranjha Ram) had sold land measuring 25 Kanals 8 Marlas to Satnam Chand, brother, Milakh Raj and Ashok Kumar, nephews of plaintiff Jaimal Chand and land measuring 13 Kanals 16 Marlas to Swaran Kaur daughter of Jagir Singh, by way of two regressed sale deeds which were attested by Beant Singh, Sarpanch of Village Bhamboor and Chamba Ram, Lambardar, and Hakam Chand, brother of the plaintiff and that regarding remaining 8 Kanals 16 Marlas of land another agreement to sell was executed in favour of plaintiff's nephew Ramesh Kumar son of Hakam Chand and that the plaintiff had promised not to claim Rs.90,000/- from Ranjha Ram. Agreement to sell dated 3.10.2001 was, admittedly, executed by Ranjha Ram (predecessor-in-interest of the defendants-appellants) in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. However, the claim on behalf of the defendants is that Ranjha Ram had returned the earnest money of Rs.90,000/- to the plaintiff- respondent on his (plaintiff's) instructions as Ranjha Ram, as per -5- Regular Second Appeal No. 1068 of 2010 (O&M). the asking of the plaintiff, had sold land measuring 25 Kanals and 8 Marlas to Satnam Chand, brother of the plaintiff and Milkh Raj and Ashok Kumar,nephew of the plaintiff. None of Satnam Chand, Milkh Raj or Ashok Kumar was examined by the defendants to prove their claim. Swaran Kaur, to whom land measuring 13 Kanals 16 Marlas was sold by Ranjha Ram, is not related to the plaintiff. Had Ranjha Ram sold land measuring 25 Kanals and 8 Marlas to Satnam Chand, brother of the plaintiff and Milkh Raj and Ashok Kumar,nephews of the plaintiff under his (plaintiff's) instructions, he (Ranjha Ram) would not have failed to obtain any writing from the plaintiff in this regard. Gurdas (D.W.2) adopted son of Ranjha Ram (deceased) stated that Ranjha Ram had returned Rs.90,000/- to the plaintiff, which he (Ranjha Ram) had received as earnest money from him in respect of the suit land. However, Gurdas (D.W.2) was unable to produce any receipt on record regarding payment of Rs.90,000/- to the plaintiff-respondent. Hakam Chand (D.W.1), who is brother of the plaintiff and is one of the two attesting witnesses of the two sale deeds i.e one in favour of Satnam Chand, Milakh Raj and Ashok Kumar and the other in favour of Swaran Kaur, also stated that he had paid Rs.1,00,000/- to his brother Jaimal Chand (plaintiff-respondent) by sale of his agricultural crop. In the absence of any documentary evidence, these oral assertions of Hakam Chand (D.W.1) and Gurdas (D.W.2) are not acceptable and have rightly been rejected by the lower appellate Court. Since the defendants failed to substantiate their pleas, as mentioned above, no fault can be found -6- Regular Second Appeal No. 1068 of 2010 (O&M). with the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by the first Appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. ( MOHINDER PAL ) February 02, 2011. JUDGE ak