Dismissed
(O&M) Ram Devi & Ors. v. Chaman Lal
Punjab & Haryana HCRSA/141/1990
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH…
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.141 of 1990 Date of decision of : 16.3.2012
Ram Devi and ors
…..Appellants
vs.
Chaman Lal …..Respondent
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: - Mr. J.L.Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant.
HEMANT GUPTA, J
Appellants, the legal heirs of defendant-Jai Dev are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby the suit for recovery of Rs. 6,700/- was decreed.
Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the said amount for the reason that on 17.7.1979, Jai Dev, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of land measuring 17 kanals 14 marlas for a total sale consideration of Rs. 16,000/-. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was received as an earnest money. But before the date of execution of the sale deed, the land was attached in pursuance of an order passed by the court. Such act frustrated the agreement. The plaintiff demanded the amount of earnest money. Since, the amount of earnest money was not refunded, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of earnest money and interest thereon.
Both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact regarding the execution of the agreement dated 17.7.1979 (Ex. P-1). The
RSA NO. 141 of 1990
-2-
receipt of payment of Rs. 5,000/- was proved as Ex. P-2. Such finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of evidence led by the plaintiff such as PW-1 Prem Chand Jain, PW-2 Jaman Dass, PW-3 Ram Kishan. The plaintiff himself appeared as PW-4. On the other hand the widow of Jai Dev examined herself as DW-1 Ram Devi.
In the present second appeal, pure finding of facts recorded by the Courts below are sought to be disputed. Such finding of fact does not give rise to any substantial question of law in the present regular second appeal.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE
16.3.2012 preeti
Ram Devi and ors
Chaman Lal
HEMANT GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court