Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MAIHNA SINGH versus BAASO RAM

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Maihna Singh v. Baaso Ram - RSA-4031-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 697 (10 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No.4031 of 2004

Date of Decision : February 09, 2006.

Maihna Singh .... Appellant

Vs.

Baaso Ram .... Respondent

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr.Arvind Mittal, Advocate

for the respondent.

JUDGMENT :

The defendant has concurrently lost before the two courts below in a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant entered into an agreement dated June 05, 1996 to sell the land in question for a consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- per acre of land and has received earnest money of Rs.81,000/-. Sale deed was to be executed on or before June 14,

1997. The same was not so executed by the defendant. The plaintiff also claimed that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Consequently, suit was filed.

The defendant appeared and contested the suit. He denied execution of any agreement in favour of the plaintiff and also denied receipt of any earnest money. He took up the plea that the plaintiff was a commission agent and the defendant was a farmer, who used to sell his produce through the plaintiff. Consequently, he claimed that a fraud had been played upon by the plaintiff.

R.S.A.No.4031 of 2004 : 2 :

Both the courts below have concurrently held that the agreement was duly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff had paid earnest money of Rs.81,000/- to the defendant. It was also held that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.

Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. The appeal filed by the defendants failed before the learned first appellate court.

Identical findings were recorded by the learned first appellate court as well.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below 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.

February 09, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika 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.