RSA-4472-2014 (O&M) [128] Ashok Kumar and another Rajinder Kumar Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] [2] performance. As per the pleadings raised in the plaint, the appellants agreed to sell the suit property as detailed out in the plaint in favour of the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dat agreed to be sold @ 1375/ agreement to sell, sum of Rs.2 lacs was paid as earnest money by the plaintiff to the agreed to g remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar on 29.04.2005 as 30.04.2005 was office of the Sub Registrar with balance sale co conveyed to the 2014 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-4472 Date of Decision : 08.04.2025 Ashok Kumar and another versus Rajinder Kumar HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Defendants are in second appeal. Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance. As per the pleadings raised in the plaint, the appellants agreed to sell the suit property as detailed out in the plaint in favour of the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dat o be sold @ 1375/- per sq. yard. A agreement to sell, sum of Rs.2 lacs was paid as earnest money by the plaintiff to the defendants in the presence of attesting witnesses. Parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 30.04.2005. Plaintiff remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar on 29.04.2005 as 30.04.2005 was a Saturday. Plaintiff claims that he remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar with balance sale co conveyed to the defendants to come present IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 4472-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.04.2025 …Appellants ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN Advocate Advocate appeal. Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance. As per the pleadings raised in the plaint, the defendant appellants agreed to sell the suit property as detailed out in the plaint in favour of the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 27.10.2004. The plot was per sq. yard. At the time of execution of agreement to sell, sum of Rs.2 lacs was paid as earnest money by the in the presence of attesting witnesses. Parties et the sale deed executed on or before 30.04.2005. Plaintiff remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar on 29.04.2005 as Saturday. Plaintiff claims that he remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar with balance sale consideration. Message was s to come present and execute sale deed in favour 1 Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific defendants- appellants agreed to sell the suit property as detailed out in the plaint in ed 27.10.2004. The plot was t the time of execution of agreement to sell, sum of Rs.2 lacs was paid as earnest money by the in the presence of attesting witnesses. Parties et the sale deed executed on or before 30.04.2005. Plaintiff remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar on 29.04.2005 as Saturday. Plaintiff claims that he remained present in the nsideration. Message was execute sale deed in favour RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.03 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4472-2014 (O&M) of the plaintiff. However, they failed to turn up. Plaintiff thereafter again came present in the office of Sub Registrar on 02.05.2005 failed to come present for execute the sale deed. [3] [4] claimed that on 26.04.2004, they agreed to sell their vacant land ad-measurin a consideration of Rs.2500/ Rs.2,50,000/ be executed on or before 25.04.2006. the plaintiff is illegal, null and void, forged, fabricated and unauthorized document. The same was manufactured by the plaintiff in connivance with the attesting witnesses. D their daughter. On the asking of the plaintiff, blank papers as a security to return the amount with interest @ 12% per annum. plaintiff. [5] 2014 (O&M) of the plaintiff. However, they failed to turn up. Plaintiff thereafter again me present in the office of Sub Registrar on 02.05.2005 failed to come present for execute the sale deed. Suit was contested by the defendant Execution of agreement to sell was denied. The defendants claimed that on 26.04.2004, they agreed to sell their vacant land measuring 583 sq. yards in favour of Harp a consideration of Rs.2500/- per sq. yard. They received earnest money of ,000/-. Possession was delivered to the be executed on or before 25.04.2006. The agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff is illegal, null and void, forged, fabricated and unauthorized document. The same was manufactured by the plaintiff in connivance with the attesting witnesses. Defendants needed some money for marriage o their daughter. On the asking of the plaintiff, blank papers as a security to return the amount with interest @ 12% per annum. The defendants never had any intention to sell the plot to the On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed: “1. Whether defendants agreed to sell the property described in the head note of plaint vide agreement dated 27.10.2004 in favour of plaintiff ? OPP 2. Whether defendants have received earnest money of Rs.2 lacs from the plaintiff? OPD 3. Whether plaintiff has always ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of poss specific performance of agreement dated 27.10.2004? OPP 5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP of the plaintiff. However, they failed to turn up. Plaintiff thereafter again me present in the office of Sub Registrar on 02.05.2005. Defendants again failed to come present for execute the sale deed. defendants. Execution of agreement to sell was denied. The defendants claimed that on 26.04.2004, they agreed to sell their vacant land g 583 sq. yards in favour of Harpreet Singh son of Ajit Singh for per sq. yard. They received earnest money of . Possession was delivered to the defendants. Sale deed was to The agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff is illegal, null and void, forged, fabricated and unauthorized document. The same was manufactured by the plaintiff in connivance with s needed some money for marriage o their daughter. On the asking of the plaintiff, defendants signed certain blank papers as a security to return the amount with interest @ 12% per any intention to sell the plot to the pleadings, following issues were framed:- Whether defendants agreed to sell the property described in the head note of plaint vide agreement dated 27.10.2004 in favour of plaintiff ? OPP Whether defendants have received earnest money of Rs.2 lacs from the plaintiff? OPD Whether plaintiff has always ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 27.10.2004? OPP Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed 2 of the plaintiff. However, they failed to turn up. Plaintiff thereafter again again Execution of agreement to sell was denied. The defendants claimed that on 26.04.2004, they agreed to sell their vacant land ingh for per sq. yard. They received earnest money of s to The agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff is illegal, null and void, forged, fabricated and unauthorized document. The same was manufactured by the plaintiff in connivance with s needed some money for marriage of certain blank papers as a security to return the amount with interest @ 12% per any intention to sell the plot to the - Whether defendants agreed to sell the property described in the head note of plaint vide agreement dated 27.10.2004 in Whether defendants have received earnest money of Rs.2 lacs Whether plaintiff has always ready and willing and is still ession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 27.10.2004? OPP Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.03 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4472-2014 (O&M) [6] Chand and Bhim Kumar G testimony by way of affidavit (Exhibit PW cross-examination. His statement was not led into after analyzing evidence threadbare answered plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff successfully proved execution of agreement (Exhibit P plaintiff, holding that the payment of earnest money of Rs.2 proved. Cou successfully proved his readiness and willingness and decree by the plaintiff. The aforesaid findings returned by the Court of the first instance stand affirmed by the Lower Appella [7] assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below. It has been contended that the plaintiff failed to prove the agreement to sell. PW being close relative of respo 2014 (O&M) 6. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 7. Whether plaintiff has got no cause of suit? OPD 8. Whether plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands, if so its effect ? OPD 9. Whether plaintiff had knowledge of agreement to sell and possession of suit plot between defendants and Harpreet Singh proposed vendee, if so its effect? OPD 10. Whether suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD” 11. Relief. ” The two attesting witnesses to the agreement to sell, Sarup Chand and Bhim Sain were examined as PW Kumar Garg appeared as PW-4. PW- testimony by way of affidavit (Exhibit PW examination. His statement was not led into after analyzing evidence threadbare answered plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff successfully proved execution of agreement (Exhibit P-1). Issue No.2 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the payment of earnest money of Rs.2 proved. Court of the first instance further found that the plaintiff successfully proved his readiness and willingness and decree by the plaintiff. The aforesaid findings returned by the Court of the first instance stand affirmed by the Lower Appella Ms. Shubreet Kaur, counsel for the appellant assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below. It has been contended that the plaintiff failed to prove the agreement to sell. PW being close relative of respondent-plaintiff is an interested witness. PW Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD Whether plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present Whether plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands, Whether plaintiff had knowledge of agreement to sell and suit plot between defendants and Harpreet d vendee, if so its effect? OPD Whether suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? The two attesting witnesses to the agreement to sell, Sarup examined as PW-1 and PW-2. Scribe-Parveen -2/Bhim Sain though tendered his testimony by way of affidavit (Exhibit PW-2/A) but never came forth for examination. His statement was not led into the evidence. Trial Court after analyzing evidence threadbare answered Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff successfully proved execution of 1). Issue No.2 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the payment of earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- was rt of the first instance further found that the plaintiff successfully proved his readiness and willingness and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The aforesaid findings returned by the Court of the first instance stand affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. counsel for the appellants-defendants has assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below. It has been contended that the plaintiff failed to prove the agreement to sell. PW-1/Sarup Chand plaintiff is an interested witness. PW 3 Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD action to file the present Whether plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands, Whether plaintiff had knowledge of agreement to sell and suit plot between defendants and Harpreet Whether suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? The two attesting witnesses to the agreement to sell, Sarup Parveen Sain though tendered his but never came forth for evidence. Trial Court Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff successfully proved execution of 1). Issue No.2 was also decided in favour of the was rt of the first instance further found that the plaintiff the suit filed by the plaintiff. The aforesaid findings returned by the Court of the first s has assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below. It has been contended 1/Sarup Chand plaintiff is an interested witness. PW- RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.03 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4472-2014 (O&M) 2/Bhim S witness box. Neither Stamp Stamp Vendor was not produced. cannot be relied upon. He is practicing as a Notary Public. He failed to produce his register. In Civil Appeal No.34 of 2012, there are findings recorded against him Notary Public She further submits that even readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is under cloud, as no evidence was led by the plaintiff to prove the same. She further submits that value of property has escalated in the las Thus, grant of main relief of specific performance would be equity. In order to hammerforth her contentions, she relie Naik versus G. Srinivasan, SLP (Civil) No.12933 of 2021, decided on 28.11.2024, U.N. Krishna SCC 775, Ritu Saxena versus J.S. Grover (2019) 9 SCC 132 and Nanjappan versus Ramasamy’, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 224. [8] has drawn attention of this Court to the testimony of plaintiff, who appeared as PW-3. He submits that plaintiff in his testimony proved his readiness and willingness. Not even a attention is drawn to Para No.10 of the plaint, wherein the plaintiff pleaded his readiness and willingness. In apart from bare denial, no plea has been raised by the [9] once the plaintiff was result of fraud and misrepresentation, the 2014 (O&M) Sain despite being related to the plaintiff opted not to appear in the witness box. Neither Stamp Vendor no endor was not produced. She submits that testimony of PW cannot be relied upon. He is practicing as a Notary Public. He failed to produce his register. In Civil Appeal No.34 of 2012, there are findings recorded against him of being negligent Notary Public. The witness being tainted ought not have been relied upon. She further submits that even readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is under cloud, as no evidence was led by the plaintiff to prove the same. She further submits that value of property has escalated in the las Thus, grant of main relief of specific performance would be equity. In order to hammerforth her contentions, she relie Naik versus G. Srinivasan, SLP (Civil) No.12933 of 2021, decided on 28.11.2024, U.N. Krishnamurthy versus A.M. Krishnamurthy, (2023) 11 SCC 775, Ritu Saxena versus J.S. Grover (2019) 9 SCC 132 and Nanjappan versus Ramasamy’, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 224. Per contra, Mr. Bhardwaj, counsel for the plaintiff has drawn attention of this Court to the testimony of plaintiff, who appeared 3. He submits that plaintiff in his testimony proved his readiness and willingness. Not even a suggestion was put to hi attention is drawn to Para No.10 of the plaint, wherein the plaintiff pleaded his readiness and willingness. In response apart from bare denial, no plea has been raised by the Mr. Bhardwaj, counsel for the plaintiff once the defendants pleaded that the agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff was result of fraud and misrepresentation, the in despite being related to the plaintiff opted not to appear in the endor nor Typist were examined. Even e submits that testimony of PW cannot be relied upon. He is practicing as a Notary Public. He failed to produce his register. In Civil Appeal No.34 of 2012, there are findings negligent in performing his functions inted ought not have been relied upon. She further submits that even readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is under cloud, as no evidence was led by the plaintiff to prove the same. She further submits that value of property has escalated in the last two decades. Thus, grant of main relief of specific performance would be against equity. In order to hammerforth her contentions, she relies upon ‘R. Shama Naik versus G. Srinivasan, SLP (Civil) No.12933 of 2021, decided on murthy versus A.M. Krishnamurthy, (2023) 11 SCC 775, Ritu Saxena versus J.S. Grover (2019) 9 SCC 132 and Nanjappan versus Ramasamy’, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 224. Mr. Bhardwaj, counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has drawn attention of this Court to the testimony of plaintiff, who appeared 3. He submits that plaintiff in his testimony proved his readiness and was put to him by the plaintiff. Further attention is drawn to Para No.10 of the plaint, wherein the plaintiff pleaded response thereto in the written statement, apart from bare denial, no plea has been raised by the defendants. for the plaintiff-respondent submits that s pleaded that the agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff was result of fraud and misrepresentation, the onus was upon the 4 in despite being related to the plaintiff opted not to appear in the Typist were examined. Even e submits that testimony of PW-4 cannot be relied upon. He is practicing as a Notary Public. He failed to produce his register. In Civil Appeal No.34 of 2012, there are findings functions as inted ought not have been relied upon. She further submits that even readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is under cloud, as no evidence was led by the plaintiff to prove the same. She t two decades. against the R. Shama Naik versus G. Srinivasan, SLP (Civil) No.12933 of 2021, decided on murthy versus A.M. Krishnamurthy, (2023) 11 SCC 775, Ritu Saxena versus J.S. Grover (2019) 9 SCC 132 and respondent has drawn attention of this Court to the testimony of plaintiff, who appeared 3. He submits that plaintiff in his testimony proved his readiness and Further attention is drawn to Para No.10 of the plaint, wherein the plaintiff pleaded thereto in the written statement, respondent submits that s pleaded that the agreement to sell propounded by the was upon the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.03 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4472-2014 (O&M) defendant same by leading cogent evidence. He further submits that testimony of Handwriting Expert DW same is against the [10] through records of the case. [11] signed by her have been misutilized. It is defendant were signed only as a security the plaintiff. Thus, the signatures are not other hand, has opined that the signatures on the agreement to sell are not of the defendant [12] defendant required to plead the details thereof. Apart from bald assertion that the agreement was manufactured using the blank singed stamp papers, there is no detail pleaded pleaded case. In view of this, Courts b successfully proved execution of the agreement to sell. [13] Section 16 of the proposition of readiness and willingness readiness and willingness. The same was reiterated by plaintiff in his 2014 (O&M) defendants not only to plead the particula same by leading cogent evidence. He further submits that testimony of Handwriting Expert DW-1/Ms. Rana Bansal cannot be looked into as the against the pleaded case of the defendant I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case. The defendant in her written statement claim signed by her have been misutilized. It is defendants had no intent to execute agreem were signed only as a security qua the loan availed the plaintiff. Thus, the signatures are not other hand, Handwriting Expert-Ms. Rana Bansal has opined that the signatures on the agreement to sell are not of the defendants. The evidence is thus, not in defendants. Once defendants took specific plea of fraud, d to plead the details thereof. Apart from bald assertion that the agreement was manufactured using the blank singed stamp papers, there is detail pleaded. Opinion of the Handwriting Expert does not support the pleaded case. In view of this, Courts below rightly held that the plaintiffs successfully proved execution of the agreement to sell. Coming on the issue of readiness and willingness in terms of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, there proposition of law that it is the plaintiff, who has to plead and prove readiness and willingness. In Para No.10 of the plaint, plaintiff pleaded readiness and willingness. The same was reiterated by plaintiff in his particulars of fraud, but also to prove the same by leading cogent evidence. He further submits that testimony of Ms. Rana Bansal cannot be looked into as the defendants. r the parties and have carefully gone in her written statement claims that blank papers signed by her have been misutilized. It is to create agreement to sell. The s had no intent to execute agreement to sell. The blank papers loan availed by the defendant(s) from the plaintiff. Thus, the signatures are not disputed by the defendants. On the Ms. Rana Bansal examined by defendant has opined that the signatures on the agreement to sell are not of the not in sync with the pleaded case of the s took specific plea of fraud, defendants w d to plead the details thereof. Apart from bald assertion that the agreement was manufactured using the blank singed stamp papers, there is . Opinion of the Handwriting Expert does not support the elow rightly held that the plaintiffs successfully proved execution of the agreement to sell. on the issue of readiness and willingness in terms of there can’t be any denial to the settled law that it is the plaintiff, who has to plead and prove n Para No.10 of the plaint, plaintiff pleaded readiness and willingness. The same was reiterated by plaintiff in his 5 but also to prove the same by leading cogent evidence. He further submits that testimony of Ms. Rana Bansal cannot be looked into as the r the parties and have carefully gone s that blank papers . The lank papers from On the examined by defendant has opined that the signatures on the agreement to sell are not of the with the pleaded case of the were d to plead the details thereof. Apart from bald assertion that the agreement was manufactured using the blank singed stamp papers, there is . Opinion of the Handwriting Expert does not support the elow rightly held that the plaintiffs on the issue of readiness and willingness in terms of to the settled law that it is the plaintiff, who has to plead and prove n Para No.10 of the plaint, plaintiff pleaded readiness and willingness. The same was reiterated by plaintiff in his RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.03 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4472-2014 (O&M) testimony as PW that he was no sell propounded by the plaintiff, the agreed date was 30.04.2005 30.04.2005 being Saturday, plaintiff claims to have appeared and present before t sale consideration on 29.04.2005 and thereafter again on 02.05.200 Affidavits to the said effect have been proved on record. was filed does not find any reason to interfere in well reasoned pure findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. [14] There being no que substitution of the opinion formulated by the Courts below, is beyond the scope of instant appeal. [15] Act, 1918 came up for consideration before Apex Court in Versus Prithvi Pal Singh & Ors. 2019(17) SCC 71 under :- 2014 (O&M) testimony as PW-3. Not even a suggestion was put to that he was not ready and willing to perform his part. sell propounded by the plaintiff, the agreed date was 30.04.2005 30.04.2005 being Saturday, plaintiff claims to have appeared and before the office of Sub Registrar, Sangrur sale consideration on 29.04.2005 and thereafter again on 02.05.200 Affidavits to the said effect have been proved on record. was filed promptly on 10.05.2005. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in well reasoned pure findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Pure findings of facts have been recorded by the Courts below. There being no question of law involved, re substitution of the opinion formulated by the Courts below, is beyond the scope of instant appeal. Scope of second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 came up for consideration before Apex Court in Versus Prithvi Pal Singh & Ors. 2019(17) SCC 71 “14. The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryan judgment reported in Sadhu v. Mst. Kishni, 1980 AIR (Punjab) 85 set aside the judgment of the learned Single Bench in an intra court appeal in terms of the provisions of law as it existed prior to 1976, and held as under: "12. The scope of second appeal as envisaged by section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act has been a matter of judicial scrutiny a number of times by this court as well as by the final court, that is, the 3. Not even a suggestion was put to him by the defendant ready and willing to perform his part. As per agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff, the agreed date was 30.04.2005 30.04.2005 being Saturday, plaintiff claims to have appeared and remained office of Sub Registrar, Sangrur, along with the balance sale consideration on 29.04.2005 and thereafter again on 02.05.200 Affidavits to the said effect have been proved on record. The instant suit on 10.05.2005. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in well reasoned pure findings of fact Pure findings of facts have been recorded by the Courts below. stion of law involved, re-appreciation of evidence and substitution of the opinion formulated by the Courts below, is beyond the Scope of second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 came up for consideration before Apex Court in Randhir Kaur Versus Prithvi Pal Singh & Ors. 2019(17) SCC 71 wherein it was held as “14. The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in a Sadhu v. Mst. Kishni, 1980 AIR (Punjab) 85 set aside the judgment of the learned Single Bench in an intra court appeal in terms of the provisions of law as it existed prior to 1976, e of second appeal as envisaged by section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act has been a matter of judicial scrutiny a number of times by this court as well as by the final court, that is, the 6 defendants As per agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff, the agreed date was 30.04.2005. remained balance sale consideration on 29.04.2005 and thereafter again on 02.05.2005. The instant suit on 10.05.2005. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in well reasoned pure findings of fact Pure findings of facts have been recorded by the Courts below. appreciation of evidence and substitution of the opinion formulated by the Courts below, is beyond the Scope of second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Randhir Kaur wherein it was held as a High Court in a Sadhu v. Mst. Kishni, 1980 AIR (Punjab) 85 set aside the judgment of the learned Single Bench in an intra court appeal in terms of the provisions of law as it existed prior to 1976, e of second appeal as envisaged by section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act has been a matter of judicial scrutiny a number of times by this court as well as by the final court, that is, the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.03 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4472-2014 (O&M) 2014 (O&M) Supreme Court of India. Th has actually made a reference in this regard to Paitabhiramaswami v. S. Hanymayya [AIR 1959 Supreme Court 57.], Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa [AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1633.], Bithal Dass Khanna v. Hafiz Abdul Hai [1969 S.C. Notes 481.] and Afsar Shaikh v. Soleman Bibi [(1976) 2 SCC 142: AIR 1976 Supreme Court 163.]. These pronouncements; in a nutshell, lay down that there is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of a erroneous finding inexecusable the error may seem to be. Nor does the fact that the finding of the first appellate Court is upon some documentary evidence make it any the less a finding of fact. A Judge of the High Court has, therefore, no jurisdic interfere in second appeal with the findings of fact given by the first appellate court based upon an appreciation of the relevant evidence. Their Lordships have further observed that the only ground on which such an appeal can be said to be competent is where there is an error in law or procedure and not merely on an error on a question of fact. xx xx xx 14. In view of the above discussion, we are clearly of the view that the learned Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the findings of the fact on issue No. 2. The provisions of section 100 being clear and unambiguous, there was no scope for interference with those findings. We thus allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and affirm the judgment the District Judge. The parties are, however left to bear their own costs. 15. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments would show that the jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the findings of fact on the ground that findings are erroneous, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be. The findings of fact will also include the findings on the basis of documentary evidence. The jurisdiction to interfere in the second appeal is only where t Supreme Court of India. The learned counsel for the appellant has actually made a reference in this regard to Detty Paitabhiramaswami v. S. Hanymayya [AIR 1959 Supreme Court 57.], Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa [AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1633.], Bithal Dass Khanna v. bdul Hai [1969 S.C. Notes 481.] and Afsar Shaikh v. Soleman Bibi [(1976) 2 SCC 142: AIR 1976 Supreme Court .]. These pronouncements; in a nutshell, lay down that there is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of a erroneous finding of fact, however gross or inexecusable the error may seem to be. Nor does the fact that the finding of the first appellate Court is upon some documentary evidence make it any the less a finding of fact. A Judge of the High Court has, therefore, no jurisdiction to interfere in second appeal with the findings of fact given by the first appellate court based upon an appreciation of the relevant evidence. Their Lordships have further observed that the only ground on which such an appeal can be said to be ent is where there is an error in law or procedure and not merely on an error on a question of fact. 14. In view of the above discussion, we are clearly of the view that the learned Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in indings of the fact on issue No. 2. The provisions of section 100 being clear and unambiguous, there was no scope for interference with those findings. We thus allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and affirm the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge. The parties are, however left to bear their A perusal of the aforesaid judgments would show that the jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the findings of on the ground that findings are erroneous, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be. The findings of fact will also include the findings on the basis of documentary evidence. The jurisdiction to interfere in the second appeal is only where there is 7 e learned counsel for the appellant Detty Paitabhiramaswami v. S. Hanymayya [AIR 1959 Supreme Court 57.], Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa [AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1633.], Bithal Dass Khanna v. bdul Hai [1969 S.C. Notes 481.] and Afsar Shaikh v. Soleman Bibi [(1976) 2 SCC 142: AIR 1976 Supreme Court .]. These pronouncements; in a nutshell, lay down that there is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the of fact, however gross or inexecusable the error may seem to be. Nor does the fact that the finding of the first appellate Court is upon some documentary evidence make it any the less a finding of fact. A tion to interfere in second appeal with the findings of fact given by the first appellate court based upon an appreciation of the relevant evidence. Their Lordships have further observed that the only ground on which such an appeal can be said to be ent is where there is an error in law or procedure and 14. In view of the above discussion, we are clearly of the view that the learned Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in indings of the fact on issue No. 2. The provisions of section 100 being clear and unambiguous, there was no scope for interference with those findings. We thus allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned and decree passed by the District Judge. The parties are, however left to bear their A perusal of the aforesaid judgments would show that the jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the findings of on the ground that findings are erroneous, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be. The findings of fact will also include the findings on the basis of documentary evidence. The here is RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.03 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4472-2014 (O&M) [16] Bench in Court) 4732 [17] the same is ordered to be dism [18] off. 08.04.2025 ‘R. Sharma' 2014 (O&M) an error in law or procedure and not merely an error on a question of fact.” The said dictum was further elaborately echoed by three Judges Bench in Satyender and Ors. Versus Saroj and Ors. 2022 AIR (Supreme Court) 4732 as under: “xxxx xxxx xxxx 17. Be that as it may, though the requirement of formulation of a substantial question of law was not necessary, yet Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, requires that only such decisions are to be considered in second appeal which are co custom or usage having the force of law or the court below have failed to determine some material issue of law or custom or usage having the force of law. Therefore, what is important is still a "question of law". In other words, s where court has to re-examine or re settled by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court......…” In view of above, finding no merit in the present second appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand 08.04.2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable an error in law or procedure and not merely an error on a question The said dictum was further elaborately echoed by three Judges Satyender and Ors. Versus Saroj and Ors. 2022 AIR (Supreme Be that as it may, though the requirement of formulation of a substantial question of law was not necessary, yet Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, requires that only such decisions are to be considered in second appeal which are contrary to law or to some custom or usage having the force of law or the court below have failed to determine some material issue of law or custom or usage having the force of law. Therefore, what is important is still a "question of law". In other words, second appeal is not a forum examine or re-appreciate questions of fact settled by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court......…” In view of above, finding no merit in the present second appeal, All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 8 an error in law or procedure and not merely an error on a question The said dictum was further elaborately echoed by three Judges Satyender and Ors. Versus Saroj and Ors. 2022 AIR (Supreme Be that as it may, though the requirement of formulation of a substantial question of law was not necessary, yet Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, requires that only such decisions are to be ntrary to law or to some custom or usage having the force of law or the court below have failed to determine some material issue of law or custom or usage having the force of law. Therefore, what is important is still a econd appeal is not a forum appreciate questions of fact In view of above, finding no merit in the present second appeal, disposed RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.05.03 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document