IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1435 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.10.2011 Ganeshi Lal … Appellant Versus Tek Chand … Respondent Present: Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: Suit filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) for possession by way of specific performance of contract dated 8.2.2005 has been decreed by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to get the sale-deed executed while performing his part of the contract, whereas the defendant tried to prove that the agreement to sell was in fact not executable because that was a document executed for taking loan as guarantee and there was a relation of loaner and loanee between the parties but failed to prove the same. Both the Courts below on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties have returned a concurrent finding of fact that defendant-appellant had entered into agreement to sell the residential house in dispute and the document executed by him was not a deed of guarantee for taking loan. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has vehemently argued that the document in question was got prepared in the garb of loan transaction but in the presence of evidence of the plaintiff and that of attesting witness, PW-1 Umed Singh, Document-writer PW-3 Ganga Ram and also PW-4 Uma Shanker from whom the defendant himself had purchased stamp-paper for the purpose of execution of agreement to sell which was duly entered in the register as well, besides the evidence available on record, failed to prove his contention. Since the arguments are based upon findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, no RSA No. 1435 of 2011 -2- substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. October 14, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE