JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- C. M. No. 7710-C of 2012 : Allowed as prayed for. C. M. No. 7711-C of 2012 : This is application for impleading legal representatives of Ranjit Kumar – defendant no.1 (since deceased). It is alleged in the application that defendant no.1 has left behind widow and two sons, mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application, who are the applicantappellants, as his only legal heirs. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly, the application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and persons mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of Ranjit Kumar – defendant no.1 (since deceased), for the purpose of this appeal. Main Appeal : 2. Legal representatives of defendant no.1 have filed this second appeal. 3. Respondent no.1-plaintiff filed suit against Ranjit Kumar and others alleging that Ranjit Kumar – defendant no.1 agreed to sell the suit property (petrol pump along with building and machinery) to the plaintiff for Rs.8,00,000/- and received Rs.6,00,000/- as earnest money and executed agreement dated 12.03.1998. License for petrol pump has been granted by defendant no.7/respondent no.3 – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. Defendants no.2 to 6 are in unauthorized occupation of the petrol pump. Defendant no.2 is respondent no.2 in this second appeal, whereas suit against defendants no.3 to 6 was dismissed by the trial court under Order 9 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC). It was agreed that defendant no.1 would get the premisses vacated from defendants no.2 to 6. Sale deed was to be executed on 12.09.1999 and vacant possession of the property was to be handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but defendant no.1 committed breach thereof. Accordingly, plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement dated 12.03.1998 and in the alternative, claimed recovery of Rs.8,00,000/- i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- as refund of earnest money and Rs.2,00,000/- as damages and compensation. 4. Only defendant no.1 contested the suit, whereas defendant no.2 was proceeded ex-parte and defence of defendant no.7 was struck off and suit against defendants no.3 to 6 was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC, as already mentioned. 5. Defendant no.1 broadly denied the plaint averments. He denied that he is owner of the suit property. 4. Only defendant no.1 contested the suit, whereas defendant no.2 was proceeded ex-parte and defence of defendant no.7 was struck off and suit against defendants no.3 to 6 was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC, as already mentioned. 5. Defendant no.1 broadly denied the plaint averments. He denied that he is owner of the suit property. He pleaded that he had taken the suit land on lease and it was further leased out to defendant no.7 by him. Defendant no.7 granted license of petrol pump to defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 had no right to transfer the suit property being not owner and also had no right to transfer the petrol pump’s license to the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 alleged that he had purchased two tanker lorries and at that time, Mr. Davinder Singh Sandhu, Advocate obtained his signatures on various documents including blank papers, which had been converted into impugned agreement. 6. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon, vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.2010, decreed the plaintiff’s suit for alternative relief for recovery of Rs.6,00,000/- against defendant no.1 with interest @ 9% per annum from 12.03.1998 (date of agreement) till date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum. First appeal preferred by defendant no.1 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2012. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of defendant no.1 have filed this second appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 8. Plaintiff, besides himself appearing in the witness-box, examined Scribe and one attesting witness of the agreement. All of them broadly stated according to the plaintiff’s version. On the other hand, there is solitary statement of defendant no.1, as per his own version. 9. Plaintiff has led cogent evidence to prove due execution of the impugned agreement by defendant no.1 and payment of earnest money of Rs.6,00,000/- to him. Plaintiff’s testimony in this regard is corroborated by sworn statements of Scribe and one attesting witness of the agreement. This cogent evidence led by the plaintiff has not been rebutted by solitary selfserving oral statement of defendant no.1. On the contrary, defendant no.1 has admitted his signatures on the impugned agreement. Onus was, therefore, more heavy on defendant no.1 to depict that he has not executed the agreement and has not received the earnest money, as recited in the agreement. On the contrary, defendant no.1 has admitted his signatures on the impugned agreement. Onus was, therefore, more heavy on defendant no.1 to depict that he has not executed the agreement and has not received the earnest money, as recited in the agreement. However, self-serving statement of defendant no.1 is not sufficient to discharge the said onus. On the contrary, the plaintiff has duly discharged his onus by leading very cogent and credible evidence. Consequently, concurrent finding recorded by the courts below to decree the plaintiff’s suit for recovery does not suffer from any infirmity, much less perversity or illegality nor the said finding is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. On the contrary, the said finding is the only reasonable finding that can be arrived at on appreciation of evidence. 10. Counsel for the appellants contended that stamp paper for the impugned agreement was purchased on 17.03.1998, as per endorsement of the stamp-vendor, whereas the agreement purports to have been executed on 12.03.1998, and therefore, plaintiff’s version cannot be accepted. The contention is devoid of merit. Photostat copy of the agreement, as shown by the counsel for the appellants, reveals that stamp paper for the agreement was purchased on 11.03.1998 and not on 17.03.1998, as per endorsement of they stamp-vendor. Even otherwise, no such plea was taken in the written statement nor defendant no.1 has examined the stamp-vendor to substantiate this contention. The contention is, therefore, negatived. 11. Counsel for the appellants also contended that interest has been awarded by the courts below since 12.03.1998 – the date of agreement when the earnest money was paid, but interest should have been awarded either from the date of filing of the suit or w.e.f. 12.09.1999 – the date stipulated in the agreement for execution of the sale deed. The contention cannot be accepted. Earnest money of Rs.6,00,000/-, for recovery whereof the suit has been decreed, was paid to defendant no.1 on 12.03.1998 – the date of agreement. Defendant no.1 utilized the said money of the plaintiff since then. Consequently, interest has been rightly awarded to the plaintiff since 12.03.1998. There is no infirmity in awarding interest since 12.03.1998 by the courts below. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------