In specific performance suits, only parties to the contract are necessary; third-party lenders are not required for such actions.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, passed in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2023, titled as Gian Chand vs. Sucharita , decided on 31.10.2023, in terms whereof, the appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, in Civil Suit No. 71 of 2021), titled as Gian Chand vs. Smt. Sucharita, dated 17.11.2022, was set aside by learned Appellate Court and the suit of the appellant before it was decreed.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff herein filed a suit for specific performance on the ground that the land measuring 2-6-0 bigha comprised in Khasra No. 437, Khata No. 7, Khatauni No. 43, Phati Haat Kothi Bajoura, Tehsil and District Kullu, to the extent of 12/46 share, was recorded in the ownership and possession of the defendant. This land was mortgaged by the defendant with Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Gandhi Nagar Branch, for a sum of Rs.4.00 Lac. In the month of September, 2011, the defendant approached the plaintiff that she was intending to sell her share measuring 0-12-0 bigha, out of the suit land and that the land was mortgaged with Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Gandhi Nagar Branch for a sum of Rs. 4.00 Lac. It was negotiated between the parties that the plaintiff would pay a sum of Rs.4.00 Lac as was due to the Bank and the land would thereafter be sold to the plaintiff by the defendant. As per the plaintiff, he cleared the entire loan of the defendant and thereafter, contacted the defendant to execute the sale deed but this was not done. The amount was deposited by the plaintiff on 27.09.2011. No due certificate by the said Bank was also issued on 20.11.2012 and mutation of redemption of Phati Haat was attested on 10.02.2012. As defendant continued to evade the execution of the sale deed on the pretext that the land was also mortgaged with Union Bank of India, Kullu Branch, which fact was never disclosed by the defendant to the plaintiff earlier, he filed the suit praying for issuance of a direction to the defendant to pay the outstanding loan amount of the Union Bank of India qua the suit land and a decree of possession be granted in favour of the plaintiff by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26.09.2011.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant inter alia on the ground that the husband of the defendant and the plaintiff were good friends and as the defendant was in need of money, the plaintiff offered to clear the bank loan of her and it is on this count that the amount was paid by the plaintiff which was treated to be a short time loan for a period of one year with interest @ 14% per annum and just as security of the aforesaid amount, the plaintiff had asked the defendant to execute an agreement to sell which was executed by her. Rest of the contents of the plaint were denied and it was denied that the defendant was ever approached by the plaintiff for execution of the sale deed or the factum of land being mortgaged with Union Bank of India was never revealed told by the defendant to the plaintiff.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following Issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 26.09.2011, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, as alleged? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- in the alternative, as alleged?