In a second appeal, the Court dismissed the matter in limine, holding that the lower courts were justified in rejecting the appellant-plaintiff's claim for specific performance as he failed to satisfactorily prove execution of the alleged oral agreement.
Second appeal dismissed in limine; impugned orders of the lower courts are affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
RSA No.3583 of 2011(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.3583 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 5, 2011
Bikramjit Singh
.....Appellant
v.
Mahabir Singh
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Sandeep Singh Deol, Advocate for the appellant.
.......
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
C.M.Nos.10128-129-C of 2011
Requests for placing on record Annexures A1 to A6.
Same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly.
RSA No.3583 of 2011
Present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 6.6.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 8.3.2010 passed by learned trial Court dismissing suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by learned Courts below.
Briefly stated the case of appellant-plaintiff is that there was an electricity connection in the name of respondent-defendant in his fields and, however, as his tubewell was not working, an agreement by way of a
RSA No.3583 of 2011(O&M) -2-
writing on a non-stamp paper was entered between both the parties, vide which respondent-defendant agreed to use the said electricity connection on the tubewell installed in the land of appellant-plaintiff and for that respondent-defendant agreed that 2/3rd share in the usage of water would be of appellant-plaintiff and 1/3rd would be of respondent-defendant. Suit was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed by learned first appellate Court was also dismissed.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellantplaintiff that respondent-defendant is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement and that now he has raised threat that he will not allow him to use 2/3rd share in the usage of water of the tubewell. However, in this case as per own admission of appellant-plaintiff, the electricity connection, which is in the name of respondent-defendant has not been shifted by Punjab State Electricity Board to the tubewell installed in the land of present appellant-plaintiff. It has also come on the record that said connection is still working in the tubewell installed in the land of respondent-defendant. It has also been observed by learned first appellate Court that it is not believable that a person would like to relinquish 2/3rd share in the usage of water just for the purpose of repairing the tubewell. Both the Courts have also held that appellant-plaintiff has failed to satisfactory prove execution of alleged agreement, Ex.P1.
Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the learned Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on
-3-
RSA No.3583 of 2011(O&M)
misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine.
5.9.2011 meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned lower court judgments which dismissed the suit for specific performance of an oral water-sharing agreement warranted interference in a second appeal.
Whether any substantial question of law arose necessitating departure from the findings recorded by the courts below on the failure to prove execution of the agreement.
Bikramjit Singh
Mahabir Singh
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
