KARTARI DEVI Vs. BHAJAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 4.7.1995. Mansa Ram defendant denied having executed any such agreement. Both the Courts below found it as a fact that the agreement of sale dated 4.7.1995 Exhibit P-1 was duly executed by Mansa Ram defendant and the plea taken by him that his thumb impression was obtained on a plain paper for the purposes of receipt and later on the aforesaid agreement was prepared, was not accepted by both the Courts below, placing reliance on the evidence led by the parties. In my opinion, this finding of the courts below is a finding of fact based on evidence led by the parties and does not call for any interference by this Court in the Regular Second Appeal. This is especially so when nothing has been shown that there is any misreading of evidence or any material piece of evidence had been ignored while giving this finding. Even otherwise, no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.