IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) R.S.A. No. 3050 of 2008 (O&M) Smt. Yashoda (dead) through L.Rs. & others. ....... Appellants through Shri G.S.Gandhi, Advocate. Versus Ram Narain. ....... Respondent through Shri Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate. (2) R.S.A. No. 4279 of 2008 (O&M) Suraj Bhan & others. ....... Appellants through Shri G.S.Gandhi,Advocate. Versus Ram Narain and another. ....... Respondent no.1 through Shri Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate. None for proforma respondent no.2. Date of Decision: 11.2.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 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? .... R.S.A.No.3050 of 2008 (O&M) -2- .... Mahesh Grover,J. This common judgment will dispose of above mentioned two Regular Second Appeals, which, although, have been preferred against two separate sets of judgments & decrees passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court, but the questions of facts and law involved therein are inter-connected. Two suits were filed – one by Ram Narain for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 4.8.1982, the second by Suraj Bhan & others for declaration and permanent injunction. The property in question was the same. In his suit as well as in the written statement filed to the suit of Suraj Bhan & others, Ram Narain had pleaded that Jaggu Singh, predecessor-in-interest of Suraj Bhan & others, had agreed to sell the suit land for a sum of Rs.18000/- being the owner in possession thereof and a co-sharer in the shamlat deh. It was further pleaded by Ram Narain that the entire sale consideration was received by Jaggu Singh at the time of execution of the agreement to sell and he was put in possession of the suit land. It was averred that the sale deed was to be executed within six months from the date of correction of the entries in the revenue record qua the suit land which had crept in on account of its nature as shamlat deh, but the said correction could not be carried out before the death of Jaggu Singh, who expired on 14.12.1994. It was further averred that Suraj Bhan & others, who are legal heirs of Jaggu Singh, were asked to get corrected the revenue entries and to execute the sale deed, but they did not do so as they were bent upon to alienate the suit land in favour of some R.S.A.No.3050 of 2008 (O&M) -3- .... other person. In their suit as well as in their written statement to the suit of Ram Narain, Suraj Bhan & others had denied the execution of any agreement to sell by Jaggu Singh qua the suit land and also denied the receipt of any sale consideration. The transfer of possession of the suit land in favour of Ram Narain was also denied. It was averred that they were in possession of the suit land being legal heirs of Jaggu Singh and a direction was sought to restrain Ram Narain from interfering in their possession on the basis of wrong entries in the revenue record. The suit of Ram Narain was decreed, whereas the suit of Suraj Bhan & others was dismissed. The appeals of Suraj Bhan & others were also dismissed. The agreement to sell was found to be validly executed by Jaggu Singh in favour of Ram Narain and delivery of possession of the suit land to him was also held to be proved. It was also found that one of the terms of the agreement to sell was that Jaggu Singh would get the revenue record corrected and within six months thereof, he would be liable to execute the sale deed. Feeling aggrieved, Suraj Bhan & others have filed these two appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the suit land belonged to the Panchayat and the same could not be alienated. He has also contended that suit of Ram Narain was barred by time as it was never filed during the life time of Jaggu Singh and from this, it should be inferred that the agreement to sell was not valid. R.S.A.No.3050 of 2008 (O&M) -4- .... On the other hand, learned counsel for Ram Narain has supported the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and contended that there is no infirmity therein as the execution of the sale deed was contingent upon the condition that the revenue record would be got corrected and only thereafter the sale deed was to be executed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that the instant appeals are misconceived. The evidence on record shows that Ram Narain, pursuant to the agreement to sell, was put in possession of the suit property by Jaggu Singh, who had received the entire sale consideration. The transaction, therefore, comes in the ambit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 as the contract between Ram Narain and Jaggu Singh was partially enforced. It has also come in evidence that there was a clause in the agreement that the sale deed would be executed only after the entries in the revenue record were changed. There is no evidence to show that the agreement was fabricated except for the mere denial that the agreement was non-existent. Suraj Bhan & others have not been able to show that the agreement was the result of fraud or misrepresentation. The fact that Ram Narain had been put in possession also leads to the suggestion that the entire sale consideration had been received by the vendor, i.e., Jaggu Singh. Besides, Jaggu Singh remained alive till 1994, whereas the agreement to sell was executed in the year 1982 and all these years, he did not raise any objection to the possession of Ram Narain over the suit land, from where it can be inferred that he had executed a valid agreement to sell, the terms of R.S.A.No.3050 of 2008 (O&M) -5- .... which Suraj Bhan & others are liable to abide by. In this view of the matter, there is hardly any merit in the appeals as no substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen therein for consideration of this Court. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees and the appeals are dismissed. All pending civil miscellaneous applications in the appeals are also dismissed in view of the above. February 11 ,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge