JOGA SINGH Vs. SUKHRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the defendant-appellant had entered into an agreement to sell the suit land to the plaintiff-respondent on 17.5.1996 for a sum of Rs. Five lacs and had also received Rs. Four lacs as earnest money. There is consistent evidence adduced by the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent has produced the attesting witness and the scribe in support of the afore-mentioned finding. The affidavit Ex. P-1 has also been proved on record which is attested by the Executive Magistrate to show the presence of the plaintiff-respondent. It has also been proved on record that notice Ex. P-2, postal receipt Ex. P-4 and acknowledgment Ex. P-3 have also been proved. The trial Court, however, found that the defendant-appellant was owner to the extent of 3/4th share of the land and he was not proved to be owner of the entire property. Therefore specific performance of the land (agreement ?) could not have been ordered and the alternative relief of recovery of earnest money has been granted. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to recover Rs. four lacs with proportionate costs. He was also held entitled to future interest @ 1 per cent over the decretal amount from the date of the suit till the date of decree and interest @ 6 per cent from the date of decree till its realisation.

(2.) ON appeal, the findings recorded by the trial Court have been accepted. However, the District Judge partially allowed the appeal in respect of rate of interest by observing that six per cent interest p.a. from the date of filing the suit till its realisation at a flat rate is just and fair. With the afore-mentioned modification the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant was dismissed.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel and perusing the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Phillaur, I am of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Courts below do not call for any interference and that the stand of the defendant-appellant with regard to marking of thumb impressions on the agreement to sell is totally false. The finding with regard to execution of the agreement to sell and the passing of consideration cannot be re-opened by this Court as there is sufficient evidence to sustain those findings. The discretion exercised by the Courts below directing the refund of earnest money alongwith interest @ six per sent also does not deserve to be interfered with. The appeal is wholly without merit as no question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise.