Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TEJ PAL versus RAM PAL

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Tej Pal v. Ram Pal - RSA-3560-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 883 (17 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 3560 of 2005 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 6, 2006

Tej Pal .....Appellant

Vs.

Ram Pal .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate

for the appellant.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

The defendant having concurrently lost before both the Courts below has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

The plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated January 31, 1992. It was claimed by him that the defendant had agreed to sell the land in question through the aforesaid agreement to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.11,650/-. Rs.11,000/- has been paid as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed within one month from the disposal of the earlier litigation.

Both the parties were fighting against one Tika Singh.

Consequently after the finalisation of the earlier litigation with Tika Singh, the plaintiff required the defendant to execute the sale deed but the defendant did not R.S.A. No. 3560 of 2005 (O&M) [2]

choose to do so. In these circumstances, it was claimed by the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Therefore, a suit for specific performance of the agreement was filed.

The suit was contested by the defendant, who denied the execution of any such agreement with the plaintiff and even receipt of the earnest money. He also claimed that in fact, the parties being relations, the signatures of the defendant had been obtained by the plaintiff on some blank papers.

Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the agreement Ex.P.1 was duly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and had also received Rs.11,000/- as earnest money vide receipt Ex.P.7. It was further held that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court and appeal filed by the defendant failed before the learned first Appellate Court.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.

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

Dismissed.

February 6, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay 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.