RSA No. 2982 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 8850-C of 2009 and RSA No. 2982 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 08 , 2010 Ravinder Chadha and another ...... Appellants Versus Parkash Singh ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.V.K.Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.K.Bhatti, Advocate for the appellants. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 8850-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, delay of 28 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 2982 of 2009 (O&M) This is an appeal against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 10.11.88 in respect of land measuring 16 acres situated at villages Jamalpur and Sarna, Tehshil Pathankot. The following questions have been proposed:- RSA No. 2982 of 2009 (O&M) 2 I) Whether the learned Courts below failed to frame proper issues? II)Whether the finding of the courts below on issues in question is wrong and erroneous? III)Whether inadequate sale consideration can be considered as suspicious circumstances? IV)Whether the alleged agreement to sell is result of fraud, forgery and fabrication? V)Whether non-mentioning of the detailed description of the property in question nullifies the transaction? As regards questions No. (I) and (II) it has not been established that any necessary issue has not been proposed or that any prejudice has been occasioned to the appellant by the framing of the issues as alleged. Questions No.(III),(IV) and (V) are pure questions of fact. Both the Courts have considered the question regarding adequacy of the sale consideration as well as the evidence which was led by both the parties in order to examine the plea of fraud, forgery and fabrication. Both the courts have also come to the conclusion that the property was sufficiently described. In the circumstances all the questions proposed are decided against the appellant. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 08, 2010 sunita