Tarsem Singh vs Karamjit Kaur and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Tarsem Singh defendant has filed the instant second appeal having lost in both the courts below.

Suit was filed by Gurdeep Singh (since deceased and represented by respondents as his legal representatives) against defendant-appellant alleging that the defendant agreed to sell suit land measuring 48 kanals to the plaintiff for Rs. 7,50,000/- and received Rs. 2 lacs as earnest money and executed agreement dated 19.5.2000. Sale deed was to be executed upto 15.1.2001. Accordingly, the plaintiff went to the office of Joint Sub Registrar on 15.1.2001 with requisite money but the defendant did not turn up. Plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendant committed breach thereof.

Accordingly, the plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell and also claimed permanent injunction and alternative relief of recovery of Rs. 4 lacs.

The defendant denied the agreement. The defendant denied having agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff. The defendant alleged that the agreement is result of fraud and misrepresentation. It was also alleged that market value of the suit land was Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre.

Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gidderbaha vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2006 decreed the plaintiff''s suit. First appeal preferred by defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Muktsar vide judgment and decree dated 11.8.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

The plaintiff examined scribe as well as one attesting witness of the agreement besides himself stepping into witness box. All of them have stated that the defendant had executed agreement and received Rs. 2 lacs as earnest money. On the other hand, the defendant in his cross-examination admitted his signatures on the agreement and also on the entry in the register of the Deed Writer relating to the agreement. Both the courts below after appreciating evidence have come to concurrent finding against the appellant-defendant. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal and therefore, does not warrant interference in second appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned agreement is result of fraud and misrepresentation. The contention cannot be accepted because the defendant did not even plead the particulars of alleged fraud nor there is any cogent evidence to prove the said plea. The defendant has not alleged as to in what circumstances he had signed the impugned agreement. He has also not alleged that as to what misrepresentation was made by the plaintiff to the defendant to obtain impugned agreement. On the contrary, statements of scribe and attesting witness of the agreement prove that the agreement was duly executed by the defendant after receiving Rs. 2 lacs as earnest money from the plaintiff. Finding of the courts below to this effect is fully justified and supported by material on record and detailed reasons recorded by the courts below. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine.