IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1511 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 9, 2011. Gurcharan Singh. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Avtar Singh and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. G.S.Bal, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 07.09.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Rupnagar vide which appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 15.01.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Kharar, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.1511 of 2011 Briefly stated, present appellant-plaintiff is claiming himself to be in possession of suit property for the last 15 years as a tenant. He has taken the plea that respondent No.2 –Amar Singh (owner) orally agreed to sell the property in dispute to him in the year 1988 for consideration of `40,000/- after receiving `10,000/- as earnest money and the remaining amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. Appellant-plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, on refusal of respondent No.2 to get the sale deed executed, the present suit has been filed. The respondent-defendant denied that he had orally agreed to sell the property in dispute to present appellant-plaintiff. Receipt of earnest money of `10,000/- was also denied. Appellant-plaintiff adduced oral evidence in order to prove the alleged oral agreement. Both the courts below after considering the evidence adduced by appellant-plaintiff and the witnesses examined by him found material discrepancies in their deposition. No date or month of the alleged agreement has been given in the plaint. Appellant while examining himself as PW1 had stated that agreement was executed in the month of March and however, other witnesses have mentioned the specific date of the agreement to sell. Though as per the case of appellant-plaintiff, the time fixed for execution of sale deed was agreed to be ten years however, when he appeared in witness box he deposed that respondent No.2 refused to execute the sale deed in the year 1991 itself. Hence, it was rightly observed by learned first appellate Court that the suit is not even within limitation. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned 2 RSA No.1511 of 2011 judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) August 9, 2011 JUDGE ‘om’ 3