RSA No. 3070 of 2009 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 3070 of 2009
Date of Decision: 20.8.2009
Amarjit Singh ......Appellant
Versus
Randhir Singh .......Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
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: Shri G.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the appellant.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).
The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the
judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for specific
performance of an agreement to sell dated 10.2.2001, was decreed.
Vide the aforesaid agreement, the defendant agreed to sell the
land measuring 3 bighas 5 biswas @ Rs.42,000/- per bigha. A sum of Rs.3
lacs was paid as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or
before 1.10.2001. However, vide writing dated 30.9.2001, the date for
execution of the sale deed was extended upto 22.4.2003 on receipt of
another sum of Rs.50,000/-. On 8.4.2003, the plaintiff called upon the
defendant to execute the sale deed through a notice, but the defendant did
not execute the sale deed. The plaintiff appeared before the Sub Registrar on
the agreed date i.e., 22.4.2003. Still the defendant did not execute the sale
RSA No. 3070 of 2009 (2)
deed which led to the filing of the present suit for specific performance.
In the written statement, the defendant took up a stand that the
aforesaid agreement to sell was executed under pressure. It was pleaded that
the plaintiff is a director of the firm, namely, Anmol India Pvt. Ltd., which
is engaged in supply of coal on commission basis. There is a Samiti,
namely, M/s Syan Gram Udyog Samiti, which runs brick kiln. The said
Samiti requested for supply of coal for their brick kiln. The said Samiti was
introduced to the plaintiff by the defendant, but since the Samiti did not
make payment of the coal purchased, the plaintiff pressurised the defendant
to execute the agreement to sell under police pressure and, therefore, the
said agreement is without consideration and cannot be specifically enforced.
The plaintiff examined R.K. Singla, deed writer as PW3,
Sukhdev Singh, attesting witness of the agreement to sell as PW2. The
plaintiff examined Manmohan Singh, his attorney as PW1. Plaintiff himself
appeared as PW5. On the other hand, defendant examined himself as DW1
and also examined DW2- Ranbir Singh, the other attesting witness of the
agreement.
From the testimony of the witnesses examined, both the Courts
have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the agreement to sell is
proved to be executed. The Courts have also taken into consideration the
statement of DW2 Ranbir Singh that even if the agreement dated 10.2.2001
was executed under pressure but there is no allegation of pressure to the
endorsement made on 30.9.2001. The said witness has admitted in the cross-
examination that he has not gone to the police station and that he has not
given any application to the police officials and that the agreement was not
obtained by the plaintiff under police pressure.
RSA No. 3070 of 2009 (3)
Both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that
the agreement to sell was executed by the defendant on 10.2.2001 after the
same was read over to him on receipt of the earnest money. It has been
further found that on 30.9.2001, the defendant received another sum of
Rs.50,000/- and executed endorsement Exhibit P.3. Such finding is based
upon appreciation of evidence. The arguments raised by the learned counsel
for the appellant are in the realm of re-appreciation of evidence. However,
it could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken
into consideration.
Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material
irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to
any substantial question of law in the present second appeal.
Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
20.8.2009
ds