MAN SINGH Vs. SHYAM MURARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below.

(2.) In a suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 22.2.1991 and consequential possession on the basis of said agreement executed by the present appellant for sale of land measuring 9 bigas and 5 biswas, the trial Court returned a finding that the present appellant had received the part of sale consideration. The trial Court also found that defendant No. 2 had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 to deal with the suit property in any manner and defendant No. 1 sold the suit land to the plaintiff at the sale consideration amount of Rs. 1,80,000.00 and received Rs. 1,50,000.00 as earnest money and balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. Due execution of agreement has been established on the basis or the evidence recorded. The trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 21.4.2005 and directed the appellant-defendant to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within one month. The appeal preferred by the present appellant in the Court of District Judge, Panchkula, was also dismissed vide its judgment and decree dated 30.11.2005. This appeal has arisen out of the aforesaid judgment. The appellate Court affirmed the judgment and concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court on all issues.

(3.) The only question which has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Power of Attorney on the basis of which agreement to sell has been executed was cancelled. The appellant moved an application for additional evidence before this Court and also placed on record a copy of Original Cancellation Deed, whereby the Power of Attorney dated 22.2.1991 has been cancelled. It is evident that Power of Attorney was cancelled. Vide cancellation deed dated 27.2.1991, whereas the agreement to sell was executed on 25.2.1991 i.e. before the cancellation came to be made. Even, this document does not improve the case of the appellant. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact. No interference is called for against the impugned judgments of the Courts below. In view of the above I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. . <span class='hidden-print'> ( <a href='Judgement.aspx?q=Indian Civil Cases]2008]2]&p=1&pos=83&qType=4'>Previous</a> <a href='Results.aspx?q=Indian Civil Cases]2008]2]&p=1&rsv=C&qType=4'>Hitlist</a> <a href='Judgement.aspx?q=Indian Civil Cases]2008]2]&p=1&pos=85&qType=4'>Next</a> ) </span>