RSA NO.1578 OF 2008 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 27.5.2008 Rajmohinder Singh ...Appellant VERSUS Raobarinder Singh …Respondent CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Ms.Sonia.G.Singh, Advocate for appellant Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) This is plaintiff’s Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 27.5.2002 in respect of the land measuring 15 kanals 4 marlas. It was pleaded that the defendant entered into the aforesaid agreement to sell and agreed to sell the land at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre and received an advance amount of Rs.2,78,500/- in total. This amount is alleged to have been paid to the defendant in various instalments of Rs.80,000/-, Rs.62,000/- and Rs.1,36,500/-. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 25.5.2003. It is alleged that the defendant refused to execute the sale deed as agreed. The defendant, however, denied the execution RSA NO.1578 OF 2008 :2: of agreement to sell, though the defendant admitted that he had some loan transactions with the plaintiff. It is pleaded by the defendant that initially, he had borrowed a sum of Rs.15000/- from the plaintiff at the rate of 3% interest per annum and the plaintiff got his signatures on the agreement to mortgage. Subsequently, some more money was advanced and the defendant was made to sign some blank non-judicial stamp papers. It is pleaded that the plaintiff has fabricated the documents showing huge amount of Rs.2,78,500/-. The defendant further pleaded that value of the land under forged contract is more than Rs.5.00 lac per acre and there was no occasion for the defendant to enter into the alleged agreement to sell at such a meager price. The trial court framed as many as four issues which read as under:- “1)Whether the defendant entered into an agreement to sell dated 27.5.2002 regarding land measuring 15 kanals 4 marlas fully described in the head note of the plaint, with the plaintiff and received a sum of Rs.2,78,500/- from the plaintiff as earnest money, as alleged? OPP. 2)Whether plaintiff always remained ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP 3)Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.4,75,000/- as alleged? OPP 4)Relief.” Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective RSA NO.1578 OF 2008 :3: contentions. The plaintiff produced the scribe to prove the agreement to mortgage dated 25.5.2001 and subsequent agreement to sell dated 27.5.2002. The defendant also led evidence to establish that he had no intention to sell the property, rather there were various loan transactions between the parties and the plaintiff obtained his signatures by adding the amount of interest etc. on earlier transactions. While deciding issues no.1 to 3, the trial court came to the conclusion that in fact there were various loan transactions between the parties and instead of granting decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell, the trial court decreed the suit for alternative relief of recovery of Rs.2,78,500/- payable with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of execution of the agreement till the date of filing of the suit and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till actual realization of the decretal amount, vide its judgment and decree dated 3.11.2006. The defendant did not prefer any appeal. However, the plaintiff challenged the aforesaid judgment before the Additional District Judge, Faridkot. The lower appellate court, after examining the evidence on record, affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 26.2.2008. It is against the aforesaid judgment and decree that the plaintiff has again come up in present Regular Second Appeal before this Court. The only contention raised on behalf of the RSA NO.1578 OF 2008 :4: appellant is that the execution of the agreement to sell having been proved, the plaintiff is entitled to relief of specific performance. From the judgments impugned, it is found that there is abundance of evidence on record to establish that there were loan transaction between the parties. This fact is further established from the case of the plaintiff himself wherein it is stated that the amount allegedly paid as earnest money was given in various instalments and the figures of the amount clearly indicate that these were basically loan transaction and interest had been added. Under the given circumstances, I am convinced that the plaintiff is not entitled to decree for specific performance. No interference is warranted against the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. No substantial question of law arises. I find no merit. Appeal is dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 27.5.2008 MFK RSA NO.1578 OF 2008 :5: