Lakha Singh vs Balwinder Singh - 2024 Supreme(SC) 839

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 839

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA
Lakha Singh – Appellant
Versus
Balwinder Singh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sahil Patel, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Mr. Susheel Joseph Cyriac, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv. Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Adv. Mr. Varun Kanwal, Adv. Ms. Divyansha Gajallewar, Adv. Mr. Debdeep Banerjee, Adv. M/S. Lex Regis Law Offices, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Ms. Reeta Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Rashika Swarup, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

Jurisdiction and Scope of Appeal: The jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised unless findings on facts recorded by Courts below suffer from perversity or are based on omission to consider vital evidence available on record. Interference with concurrent findings in an appeal under Article 136 is to be made sparingly. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Specific Relief Act Section 16(c) – Agreement to Sell: No relief can be granted on an agreement which is highly suspicious. (!)
Perversity of Lower Court Findings: The impugned judgments rendered by the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court suffer from perversity on the face of the record and cannot be sustained. (!)
Fraudulent Execution of Agreement: The disputed agreement is highly suspicious and does not inspire confidence. It appears to have been prepared on a blank stamp paper where the thumb impression of the illiterate appellant-defendant was taken beforehand, and the document was subsequently typed on it. This is supported by large blank spaces on the first two pages of the agreement where signatures or thumb impressions were absent. (!) (!) (!)
Police Employee's Duty: The respondent-plaintiff, being a Police Constable, was mandatorily required to seek permission from his department before entering into an agreement to purchase property of such high value. However, he did not seek any such permission. (!) (!)
Suspicious Transaction Terms: There was no rhyme or reason for the respondent-plaintiff to agree to defer the execution of the sale deed to a date more than a year and four months after the execution of the agreement, especially since a lion's share of the sale consideration (Rs. 16,00,000/-) was paid at the time of execution, leaving only a small fraction (hardly 15%) as the balance amount. (!) (!) (!)
Absence of Balance Payment: The respondent-plaintiff did not carry or offer the balance sale consideration when he proceeded to the Sub-Registrar's office on the scheduled date, nor did he give advance intimation to the appellant-defendant to receive the balance and execute the deed. (!)
Loan vs. Sale Transaction: The circumstances, evidence, and the disputed agreement indicate that the transaction was a sheer piece of fraud and concoction, likely a loan transaction rather than a genuine sale and purchase agreement. (!) (!)
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgments and decrees are quashed and set aside. (!) (!)

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 25th April, 2018 rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby the second appeal [RSA No. 4577 of 2017(O&M)]. preferred by the appellant-defendant was dismissed, and the judgment dated 20th March, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran[‘First Appellate Court’.] in Civil Appeal[Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2016.] was affirmed. The First Appellate Court dismissed the Civil Appeal preferred by the appellant- defendant and upheld the judgment and decree dated 18th February, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti, Tarn Taran⁴[‘trial Court’.] in Civil Suit⁵[Civil Suit No. 535 of 2008.] filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The trial Court allowed the suit partly, directing the recovery of Rs. 16,00,000/- and the interest accrued thereupon from the appellant-defendant by way of alternative relief of recovery while denying the prayer of specific performance sought for by the respondent-plaintiff.

4. The facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.

5. Th