-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 312 of 2009 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 20, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 312 of 2009 (O&M). Sandeep Singh and others ... Appellants VERSUS Mukhinder Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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 ? Present: Mr. G.S.Ghuman, Advocate, for the appellants. None for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Appellants, who are legal representatives of late Jasbir Singh (plaintiff) are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by them for specific performance of the -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 312 of 2009 (O&M). agreement to sell dated 29.10.1991, modified on 14.2.1992 and 26.2.1992 in respect of the suit land measuring 31 Kanals 5 Marlas, with an alternative relief of return of Rs.10,50,000/-, was dismissed. Defendant-respondent No.2 Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. (D.C.M. Ltd.), was the owner of the suit land. Defendant No.2, vide memorandum of understanding, agreed to sell the suit land in favour of Mukhinder Singh, defendant-respondent No.1 on 6.8.1991. Defendant No.1, represented to the predecessor in interest of the appellants i.e plaintiff Jasbir Singh, that he was entitled to sell the land in dispute by virtue of the above mentioned memorandum of understanding dated 6.8.1991 and entered into an agreement dated 29.10.1991 with Jasbir Singh to sell the land in dispute to him (Jasbir Singh) for Rs.15,00,000/-. At the time of execution of the agreement to sell, defendant No.1 received Rs.2,50,000/-. Since the possession of the disputed land was with the Central Reserved Police Force (C.R.P.F), it was agreed that Jasbir Singh could only receive rent of the said land from C.R.P.F with effect from 1.3.1991. Thereafter, a supplementary agreement dated 14.2.1992 was executed and defendant No.1 received another Rs.5,00,000/- from Jasbir Singh. Thereafter, the sale deed was agreed to be executed upto 25.2.1992. Again, vide supplementary agreement dated 26.2.1992, the date for execution of the sale deed was extended upto 15.6.1992 and defendant No.1 received another amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from Jasbir Singh. Thus, in all, a sum of -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 312 of 2009 (O&M). Rs.10,50,000/- had been paid to defendant No.1 by Jasbir Singh out of the total sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-. It has been averred in the plaint that defendant No.1 did not execute the sale deed in favour of Jasbir Singh despite repeated requests and that predecessors-in-interest of Jasbir Singh were still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The plaintiffs did not press their claim against defendant No.2 and got their suit against the said defendant dismissed as withdrawn as per the statement dated 8.5.1995 made by their counsel before the trial Court. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, he, inter alia pleaded that the transaction of sale of the property in dispute did not materialize and Jasbir Singh had received back the amount from defendant No.2. The agreement to sell was cancelled with mutual consent on 22.6.1992. This fact of cancellation of the agreement to sell was concealed by the plaintiffs while filing the instant suit. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and recording their evidence dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that such findings are based on misreading of -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 312 of 2009 (O&M). evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. It has been found by both the Courts below that the agreement to sell had been cancelled with mutual consent on 22.6.1992 and the amount which had been paid by Jasbir Singh to Mukhinder Singh (defendant No.1) had been returned to Jasbir Singh. Exhibit D.1 is the agreement whereby the agreement to sell had been cancelled and Exhibit D.2 is the receipt whereby the amount had been returned to Jasbir Singh. Rs.7,50,000/- were returned to Jasbir Singh in cash and Rs.3,00,000/- by way of three Drafts. The plaintiff failed to rebut these documents by leading any documentary evidence. It also deserves notice that defendant No.1 was not the owner of the suit land and it was defendant No.2 who was its owner, but significantly the plaintiffs got their suit dismissed as withdrawn against defendant No.2 on 8.5.1995, as has been mentioned above. Since defendant No.1 had acted as representative of defendant No.2 at the time of executing the agreement to sell in favour of Jasbir Singh, the act of the plaintiffs in getting their suit dismissed as withdrawn against defendant No.2 shows that the amount paid by Jasbir Singh as per the agreement to sell had been returned to him (Jasbir Singh). No fault, therefore, can be found with the findings arrived at by both the Courts below. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present -5- Regular Second Appeal No. 312 of 2009 (O&M). appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 20, 2011. JUDGE ak