R.S.A No. 3261 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 3261 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : April 27, 2010 Joginder Singh, ...... Appellant (s) v. Deva Singh, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for specific performance of an agreement to sell on the ground that he has not been able to prove either the agreement or the consideration. The appellant has claimed that the respondent had entered into an agreement to sell 31 kanals 9 marla of land for a total consideration of Rs.5.90 lacs, received a sum of Rs.5 lacs as earnest money and had handed over possession of the land in dispute to him. The plea of the respondent, on the other hand, was that the appellant had been an agent and used to R.S.A No. 3261 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: purchase agricultural produce; that he had never agreed either to sell the land nor had received any money; that because of long standing business relationship some blank papers which the appellant may have been in his possession, could have been misused to create the documents on which the suit was based. Both the Courts found that the appellant had not been able to prove that infact there was ever any agreement between the parties to sell the land in dispute or that he had paid any earnest money or that he had ever been put into possession of the land in dispute, and consequently dismissed the suit. The following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant are perverse the same being based on mis-reading and non-reading of evidence ? ii) Whether Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act is applicable as per facts in the present case ? iii) Whether the plaintiff was always ready to perform his part of the contract ? iv) Whether the agreement to sell dated 11th February 1999 and 15th June, 2000 were executed between Joginder Singh and defendant Deva Singh ?” It would be seen that questions No.(i), (iii) and (iv) are related questions and are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded by the Courts below that the appellant has not been able to prove either the agreement to sell or R.S.A No. 3261 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: the passing of earnest money or the handing over of possession are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Once questions No. (i), (iii) and (iv) are held against the appellant, question No.(ii) does not arise. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 27, 2010. JUDGE `kk'