IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.118 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: December 14, 2011. Rohtash. ...... APPELLANT. Versus Vikram and others. ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul dismissing the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and have gone through the whole record including impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. RSA No.118 of 2010(O&M) Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for a decree for specific performance of contract dated 4.6.1998 allegedly executed by respondent-defendants No.1 and 2 and late Gainda Ram, father of respondents-defendants No.3 to 9 for sale consideration of Rs.65,000/-. Respondents-defendants No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement admitting the claim of present appellant-plaintiff by admitting execution of agreement to sell dated 4.6.1998. However, respondents No.3 to 9 filed joint written statement contesting the suit. Plea has been taken that their father along with respondents No.1 and 2 had taken some loan from the plaintiff and accordingly, impugned agreement was executed as a security for the loan. It is also contended that they already offered their share of loan to the plaintiff and however, he refused. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court partly decreed the suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff to the extent that a decree for possession with respect to 2/3rd share of the suit land on payment of balance sale consideration was passed against respondents No.1 and 2 and however, decree for recovery of Rs.8233.33 paise along with interest @ 10% per annum from 3.6.1999 till realisation, was passed against the contesting respondents-defendants No.3 to 9. Appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul. In this case, one of the witnesses of plaintiff namely Jaswant Singh PW-2 has admitted that Gainda Ram, Hari Ram and Vikram had taken a loan of Rs.24,700/- for a period of one year from Rohtash, appellant- plaintiff and the land was mortgaged as a security for repayment of loan. He admitted that there was no contract between the parties for sale of land. He 2 RSA No.118 of 2010(O&M) also admitted that respondents-defendants No.3 to 9 had appeared before the Tehsildar on 3.6.1999 and offered to return 1/3rd share of the loan to the present appellant-plaintiff in presence of Tehsildar and however, the present appellant-plaintiff refused to accept the said amount. He has also admitted that they also moved an application in this regard before the Tehsildar. Even PW-2 has admitted that he had not read over the alleged agreement regarding sale transaction to respondents-defendants. Even the appellant- plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the land in dispute. Sufficient evidence adduced by the respondent-defendants No.3 to 9 that they are in physical possession of the land in dispute and that they were always ready to return the proportionate amount of loan allegedly taken by their predecessor-in-interest. It has also been observed by learned first appellate Court that the perusal of agreement shows that the same was executed just to secure the repayment of loan as there is a clause in the agreement that the same would be treated as cancelled on repayment of Rs.24,700/-. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned 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. 3 RSA No.118 of 2010(O&M) ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 14, 2011. JUDGE Sachin M. 4