Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
N.K.Kapoor, J.
Anokh Devi
Versus
Trilok Singh
Regular Second Appeal No. 210 of 1985,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 21, 1995
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND - COLLUSIVE DECREE - RIGHT TO PRE-EMPTION - JOINT HINDU FAMILY PROPERTY - ANCESTRAL PROPERTY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 10 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - PRESUMPTION OF ADEQUATE RELIEF BY COMPENSATION - EXCEPTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement dated 20.11.1977 against Babu Singh for the sale of land. Babu Singh transferred the land to defendants 2 to 5 through a collusive and fraudulent decree on 11.4.1978. The trial court decreed the suit and directed Babu Singh and other defendants to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiffs. The lower appellate court upheld the trial court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the agreement for sale of land was duly executed by Babu Singh and that the plaintiffs paid Rs. 14,000/- as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement. The court held that the decree suffered by Babu Singh in favor of other defendants was collusive and fraudulent and did not affect the rights of the plaintiffs. The court also found that there was no evidence to prove that the suit land was a Joint Hindu Family Property or that the present appellants constitute a Joint Hindu Family with Babu Singh.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement for sale of land was valid and enforceable? 2. Whether the decree suffered by Babu Singh in favor of other defendants was collusive and fraudulent? 3. Whether the suit land was a Joint Hindu Family Property or ancestral property? 4. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance of the agreement or only to compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the agreement for sale of land was valid and enforceable as it was duly executed by Babu Singh and the plaintiffs paid earnest money. The court relied on Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, which presumes that the breach of contract to transfer immovable property cannot be adequately relieved by compensation in money unless the contrary is proved. 2. The court held that the decree suffered by Babu Singh in favor of other defendants was collusive and fraudulent as it was obtained without any contest and on the same day the suit was filed. The court also noted that Babu Singh did not mention any family settlement in the agreement, which was alleged to have taken place in August 1976. 3. The court found that there was no evidence to prove that the suit land was a Joint Hindu Family Property or that the present appellants constitute a Joint Hindu Family with Babu Singh. The court noted that the defendants failed to adduce any evidence in support of their contention. 4. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance of the agreement as the breach of contract could not be adequately relieved by compensation in money. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in M.L. Devender Singh and Ors. v. Syed Khan, where it was held that the parties themselves had provided a sum to be paid by the party breaking the contract, which removed the strong presumption contemplated by Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the lower appellate court. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
N.K.Kapoor, J.
1. This defendants regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge affirming in appeal the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
2. Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 20.11.1977 against Babu Singh. As per averment made in the plaint, Babu Singh agreed to sell the land measuring 65 Kanals 18 marlas as detailed in agreement dated 20.11.1977 for a consideration of Rs. 51,000/- and he received a sum of Rs. 14,000/- as part purchase price on the same day. As per terms mutually agreed between the parties, the sale deed was to be executed by 15.6.1978. It was further agreed that in case of default by the plaintiffs, the earnest money shall stand forfeited and in case defendant No. 1 resiles from executing the sale deed, the plaintiffs, shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they were ever ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and for which they had issued notice to Babu Singh defendant. Defendant Babu Singh, however, refused to perform his contract. Not only this, he transferred this land to the names of defendants No. 2 to 5 suffering a collusive and fraudulent decree in {their favour on 11.4.1978. Accordingly, the plaintiffs impleaded these persons also as defendants.
3. Defendant No. 1 put in appearance and filed written statement controverting the various material averments made in the plaint Defendant No. 1 alleged that he never agreed to sell the suit land nor he received any earnest money from the plaintiffs and in case the plaintiffs have any agreement in their possession, the same has been obtained by fraud. It was further stated that there has been a family settlement between him, his sons and wife in the year 1976 and under the family settlement the suit land has fallen to the share of other defendants.
4. Defendants Nos.2 to 4 filed a separate written statement taking a plea that the land in dispute is a joint Hindu Family Property and so defendant No. 1 had no right to alienate the same without legal necessity. They further pleaded that defendant No. 1 is an opium eater and drunkard.
5. Defendant No. 5 filed written statement that defendant No. 2 to 5 are owners in possession of the suit land. Other averments made in the plaint were denied for want of knowledge.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether defendant No. 1 was owner of the land as described in para No. 2 of the plaint O.P.P.
2. Whether defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement dated 20.11.1977 to sell the suit land for Rs. 51,000- and received Rs. 14,000/- as earnest money? O.P.P.
3. Whether the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of contract and continued to be so? O.P.P.
4. If issue No. 2 is proved, what were the terms and conditions of agreement? O.P.P.
5. Whether the decree suffered by defendant No. 1 in favour of other defendants is collusive fraudulent and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs? O.P.P.
6. Whether the suit is not properly valued? O.P.P.
7. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit? O.P.D.
8. Relief.
7. The trial Court also framed the following additional issues :-
7-A. Whether the defendants constitute Joint Hindu Family and the suit land is a Joint Hindu Family property, if so, to what effect? O.P.D.
7-B. Whether the 1st defendant is an opium addict, drunkard and spend thrift person, if so, to what effect? O.P.D.
7-C Whether the suit land is ancestral of defendant No.1 qua defendants No. 2 to 5 and whether defendant No.1 cannot alienate the same as alleged in para 3 of the written statement? O.P.D.
8. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs holding that defendant Babu Singh was owner of the suit land. Issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were taken up together and were decided in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs. 14,000/- at the time of exec
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
