Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 839

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Lakha Singh – Appellant
Versus
Balwinder Singh & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). 10893 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 30250 of 2018)
Decided on : 27-09-2024

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.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Agreement to Sell – No relief can be granted on an agreement which is highly suspicious.
(2) Appeal by special leave – Scope of – Jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution of India should not be exercised unless findings on facts recorded by Courts below suffer from perversity.

Headnote:
(A) Specific Relief Act, 196e – Section 16(c) – Agreement to Sell – Suit seeking Relief of Specific Performance as well as Permanent Injunction – Grant of alternative relief of recovery while denying prayer of specific performance sought for by respondent-plaintiff – Respondent-plaintiff being a Police Constable was mandatorily required to seek permission from his department before entering into an agreement to purchase property of a high value – However, he did not seek any such permission from department – Lion’s share of sale consideration was already paid to appellant-defendant at the time of execution of disputed agreement and remaining amount was hardly 15% of total value of suit land as agreed upon between parties – There was no rhyme or reason as to why respondent-plaintiff would agree to defer execution of sale deed to a date more than a year and four months after execution of the disputed agreement – Agreement to sell read in entirety is highly suspicious – Large blank spaces fortifies the conclusion that disputed agreement was transcribed on one of blank stamp papers on which thumb impression of appellant-defendant had been taken beforehand – Impugned judgments quashed and set aside. (Paras 28, 29 and 40)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal by special leave – Scope of – Jurisdiction under Article 136 of 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 appeal under Article 136 of Constitution is to be made sparingly. (Paras 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court allowed suit partly, directing recovery of Rs. 16,00,000/- and interest accrued thereupon from the appellant-defendant by way of alternative relief of recovery while denying prayer of specific performance sought for by respondent-plaintiff. First and second appeals filed by appellant-defendant were dismissed by Appellate Courts.
Findings of Court:
Judgment and decree dated 18th February, 2013 rendered by trial Court, judgment dated 20th March, 2017 passed by First Appellate Court and the judgment dated 25th April, 2018 rendered by the High Court suffer from perversity on face of record and hence, same cannot be sustained.
Result : Appeal allowed.

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. The respondent-plaintiff filed the subject suit in the trial Court seeking a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 7th May, 2007⁶[‘disputed agreement’.] in respect of an agricultural plot of land admeasuring 30 Kanals 8 Marlas⁷[‘suit land’.] located at Village Amrike, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran, Punjab. Besides the relief of specific performance, the respondent-plaintiff also sought permanent injunction for restraining the appellant-defendant from alienating the suit land and dispossessing the respondent-plaintiff from the same. In the alternative, respondent-plaintiff sought relief of recovery of Rs.19,00,000/- including the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- paid as earnest money on the date of execution of the disputed agreement along with the damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-.

6. The respondent-plaintiff averred in the plaint that the appellant-defendant, being the owner of the suit land, had agreed to sell the same to the respondent-plaintiff vide the disputed agreement wherein, the rate of the land was fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- per Killa with a condition to get the sale deed executed and registered on 19th September, 2008. As per the recitals in the disputed agreement, the appellant-defendant received a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- by way of earnest money on the date of the execution of the agreement with a further stipulation that the balance consideration would be paid on 19th September, 2008, when both the parties would appear at the Registrar office. It was further stipulated that if on the said date, the appellant-defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed then, he would become liable to return the earnest money to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- along with penalty of equal amount, totalling to Rs.32,00,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff. Even after receiving the money and the penalty, the respondent-plaintiff would be entitled to file a suit for getting the sale deed executed in his favour. This disputed agreement was attested by two witnesses namely, Major Singh (PW-4) and Balwinder Singh (PW-2).

7. It was also averred in the plaint that a part of the property was under mortgage with respondent No. 2 i.e. The State Bank of Patiala. The respondent-plaintiff claimed that he reached the Office of Joint Registrar, Khem Karan on the date stipulated in the disputed agreement i.e. 19th September, 2008 and remained present there from 09:00 am to 05:00 pm waiting for the appellant- defendant to arrive. However, the appellant-defendant did not turn up to get the sale deed registered in favour of the respondent- plaintiff, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the agreement. As such, the respondent-plaintiff got an affidavit of attendance attested from the Executive Magistrate, Khem Karan, who was also discharging the duties o