Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALWANT SINGH versus SMT.KRISHANA & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Balwant Singh v. Smt.Krishana & Anr - RSA-2664-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 2225 (3 April 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO.2664 of 2004

DATE OF DECISION:March 27,2006

Balwant Singh

....Appellant

VERSUS

Smt.Krishana and another

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri Satbir Singh Malik, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Jaivir Yadav, Advocate for the respondents.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

The plaintiff is in appeal. He has lost before the learned First Appellate Court.

The plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement dated January 14, 1995 executed by defendant No.1 in his favour. The plaintiff claimed that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of agreement and had paid an earnest money of Rs.20,000/-. However, defendant No.1 had failed to execute the sale deed, therefore, the suit was filed.

The suit was contested by the defendants. They admitted the execution of the agreement dated January 14,1995 between the parties but pleaded that the aforesaid agreement stood cancelled through a writing dated February 7,1995 and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was returned back to the plaintiff.

The learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. It was held by the learned trial Court that the cancellation deed Ex.D1 pertains to cancellation of an agreement dated December 15,1994 between the parties and, therefore, the agreement dated January 14, 1995 executed between the parties was never cancelled.

The defendants took up the matter in appeal. The learned First Appellate Court re-appraised the entire evidence. On such re-appraisal, the learned First Appellate Court found that the execution of the cancellation deed dated February 7,1995 had been admitted by the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, the plaintiff had also admitted that he had received Rs.20,000/- back which had been paid by him as earnest money. However, the plea raised by the defendants to the effect that in the cancellation deed the wrong date of agreement had been mentioned and instead of January 14,1995, the date had been mentioned as December 15,1994 was accepted. It has also been found as a fact that there was no other agreement between the parties dated December 15,1994 ever executed. Consequently, it was held by the learned First Appellate that the agreement in question relied upon by the plaintiff stood cancelled through a cancellation deed Ex.D1. Consequently, the appeal of the defendants was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

Shri Satbir Singh Malik, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that a perusal of the cancellation deed Ex.D1 would show that the said cancellation pertains to an agreement dated December 15, 1994 and not with regard to the agreement in question dated January 14,1995.

However, Shri Jaivir Yadav, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that there was no other agreement dated December 15, 1994 ever executed between the parties and, therefore, the cancellation of the aforesaid any such agreement did not arise. The learned counsel has also referred to the findings recorded in this regard by the learned First Appellate Court.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel, I find that there is no force in the present appeal.

A positive finding of fact has been recorded by the learned First Appellate Court that the cancellation deed Ex.D1 pertains to the cancellation of the agreement dated January 14, 1995 and that there was no other agreement dated December 15, 1994 executed between the parties. It has also been found as a fact that the earnest money of Rs.20,000/- received by the plaintiff had been returned back to him on cancellation of the agreement. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that there was any other agreement dated December 15, 1994 executed between the parties and that the refund of the earnest money of Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff pertains to any other agreement.

Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact recorded by the learned First Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

March 27, 2006 (Viney Mittal)

KD Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.