R.S.A. No. 2948 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2948 of 2008 Date of Decision: 7.11.2008 Gurveer alias Gurmehar ...Appellant. Versus Daya Nand ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. C.B. Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This judgment shall dispose of two appeals being RSA Nos. 2948 and 2949 of 2008 as both arise from one and the common judgment which after their consolidation was passed in two suits- one for specific performance and the second for permanent injunction and common questions of facts are involved therein. For brevity, the facts are being taken from RSA No. 2948 of 2008. Defendant-Gurvir alias Gurmehar agreed to sell the land measuring 8 kanals, fully detailed in the head note of the plaint, to the plaintiff-Dayanand, for a sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- and executed an agreement dated 16.7.1993 in this regard in the presence of the witnesses and received a sum of Rs.35,000/- as earnest money. The possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff. As per the R.S.A. No. 2948 of 2008 -2- agreement, the sale deed was to be executed on or before 16.7.1994. It was stipulated therein that in case the defendant failed to execute the sale deed by the due date, the plaintiff was at liberty to get the contract enforced through the Court and if the plaintiff committed any default in performance of his part of contract then the earnest money was to be forfeited by the defendant. It was pleaded that the stipulated date, i.e. 16.7.1994 being Saturday and 17.7.1994 being Sunday, on 18.7.1994, the plaintiff went to the court compound at Dadri along with remaining sale price, stamps and registration charges for performing his part of the contract but the defendant did not turn up to execute the sale deed and thereafter, the plaintiff got his presence marked by way of submitting an affidavit attested by the Executive Magistrate-cum-Sub Registrar, Charkhi Dadri. It was further pleaded that the notice dated 24.11.1995 served upon the defendant had also failed to evoke any positive result. Since the defendant failed to perform his part of contract and the plaintiff was ready and willing to do the needful as agreed upon between the parties, the latter filed a suit for decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 16.7.1993 and another suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant to sell the suit land to anybody else and also from interfering in his possession over the suit land. While admitting the execution of the agreement to sell dated 16.7.1993, the stand of the defendant was that the plaintiff did not perform his part of the contract as he never remained ready and willing to get the sale deed executed by paying the remaining amount of sale consideration. He took the plea that the plaintiff had also entered into R.S.A. No. 2948 of 2008 -3- an agreement to purchase the land of the sons of real brother of the defendant and requested him to adjust the earnest money of Rs.35,000/- in the sale deed, executed by his nephews and that amount was adjusted towards the sale price of Rs.48,000/- of the land measuring 4 kanals 10 marlas for which sale deed No. 690 dated 3.7.1995 was executed. The other averments made in the plaints were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suits was made. The trial court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, held that the defendant executed the agreement dated 16.7.1993 to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.40,000/- and received Rs.35,000/- as earnest money. It was further held by the trial court that possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement to sell and that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract whereas it was the defendant who was at default. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 18.3.2004 decreed both the suits of the plaintiff holding him entitled to get the sale deed in respect of the suit land executed in his favour on payment of remaining amount of Rs.5000/- to the defendant and the defendant was restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land illegally and forcibly. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant filed two appeals. The lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 24.4.2008 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court in both the suits and dismissed the appeals. Hence, these two second appeals. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have R.S.A. No. 2948 of 2008 -4- perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. The Courts below in view of the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record had come to a conclusion that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Dadri on the date stipulated for execution of the sale-deed but the defendant did not turn up. Further, it was held by the trial court that the defendant in his written statement had not even mentioned that on the stipulated date, he was present in the office of Sub Registrar, Dadri for performing his part of the contract. No fault could be shown by the learned counsel in the conclusions arrived at by the courts below. No error could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below which may warrant interference by this Court. There is no misreading and misappreciation of any evidence and, therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from perversity. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arise in these appeals for determination by this Court particularly when execution of the agreement in question had been admitted by the defendant and the courts below under issue No.3 had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed whereas it was the defendant-appellant who was the defaulting party. Accordingly, finding no merit in both the appeals, the same are hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. November 7, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE R.S.A. No. 2948 of 2008 -5- R.S.A. No. 2948 of 2008 -6- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2949 of 2008 Date of Decision: 7.11.2008 Gurveer alias Gurmehar ...Appellant. Versus Daya Nand and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. C.B. Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal is dismissed. For reasons, see separate judgment of even date recorded in RSA No. 2948 of 2008 (Gurveer alias Gurmehar Vs. Daya Nand). November 7, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE