Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh vs Ajit Singh on 30 July, 2009
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 2472 of 2007
Date of Decision : July 30, 2009
Ranjit Singh
.....Appellant
Versus
Ajit Singh
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate
for the respondent-Caveator.
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
Suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 2.8.2000. Vide judgment dated October 22, 2005, learned trial Court held that though the execution of the agreement Ex.P1 stood proved yet the defendant had been able to show that there was no intention of the parties to enter into an agreement to sell. Under these circumstances, learned trial Court did not grant relief of specific performance to the plaintiff and, instead, held him entitled to the alternative relief for refund of the earnest amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The findings arrived at R.S.A. No. 2472 of 2007 -2- by the learned trial Court were upheld in appeal filed by the defendant-appellant. Aggrieved of the same, he is now before this Court in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The plea of the defendant that his signatures were obtained by the plaintiff on blank papers, has been negatived by the learned Courts below. On the other hand, agreement Ex.P.1 was found to have been duly entered into by the parties. On the basis of the same, learned Courts below were justified in acting upon the agreement Ex.P1 to the extent of holding the plaintiff entitled to the alternative relief for refund of the earnest amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below cannot be disturbed in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. No question of law, much less substantial questions of law, as claimed by the defendant-appellant arises for consideration. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
( T.P.S. MANN )
July 30, 2009 JUDGE
satish