SAWARAN SINGH Vs. AJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 23,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent has filed a civil suit for possession by way of specific performance on payment of balance sale consideration in respect of the suit land. Both the Courts below have categorically held that the agreement to sell dated 15.11.1995 for a sale consideration of Rs. One lac was in fact a money transaction in order to secure the loan. Both the Courts have found that the defendant-appellant never agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff-respondent. For the aforementioned conclusion, both the courts have relied upon various other transactions showing that the plaintiff-respondent in fact has been entering into such type of agreements with the defendant- appellant as well as some other persons also. It has also been found that a sum of Rs. 23,000/- has been advanced to the defendant-appellant and the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to recover the same from him, although no such prayer was made by the plaintiff-respondent. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a judgment of this court in the case of Sardari Lal v. Kartar Singh and others, 1998(2) RCR(Civil) 49 (P&H) : 1998(2) PLJ 55 holding that the Court can always grant relief on the basis of findings recorded by it although the same has not been prayed for.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any legal infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. Both the Courts have categorically held that a sum of Rs. 23,000/- has been paid by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendant-appellant and he was entitled to recover the same. That findings of fact cannot be assailed under Section 100 of the Code because it is based on cogent evidence. There is no finding that in fact the plaintiff- respondent has advanced a loan of Rs. 9,000/- only and a sum of Rs. 23,000/- has been worked out by adding interest at the rate of 5% per month. There is no such issue framed by the Courts below. Therefore, no interference in the findings of fact is called for and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.