Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Vinod K.Sharma, J.
Sampat
Versus
Lakshmi Narain
RSA No. 4931 of 2003,
Decided On : MAY 15, 2009
specific performance - agreement to sell - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 22, Article 113 of the Limitation Act - 15.9.1989 - 1. Whether the learned courts below were required to consider the question of delay while deciding whether relief of specific performance was to be granted to the plaintiff/respondents? 2. Whether in view of the fact that the suit to enforce the agreement dated 15.9.1989 was filed on 15.9.1`992, therefore, in view of delay, the suit was liable to be dismissed? - The relief of specific performance is discretionary and not arbitrary. Mere delay without more extending up to the period of limitation cannot be a reason for a Court to exercise its discretion against giving a relief of specific performance. The suit was filed within the period of limitation, and delay is sanctioned by law. The judgment in the case of Madamsetty Satyanarayana (Supra) being of a Larger Bench is to be preferred on the doctrine of stare decisis to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant/appellants. The decision of the larger Bench will prevail. Once it has been held on appreciation of evidence, that the agreement to sell was executed, on receipt of earnest money, and that plaintiffs always remained and were still willing to perform their part of contract, the relief could not be denied merely on account of delay.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15.9.1989. The defendants contested the suit, denying the agreement and raising preliminary objections.
Finding of the Court:
The courts found that the defendants had agreed to sell the land in dispute to the plaintiffs, and the payment of earnest money as part payment of the price payable was proved. The plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. The defendants were owners of the land in dispute on 15.9.1989. The plaintiffs were successors-in-interest being heirs of Matadin. The suit was partly decreed for possession by way of specific performance.
Issues: The issues included the existence of the agreement, payment of earnest money, readiness to perform the agreement, ownership of the land, and the status of the plaintiffs as successors-in-interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The relief of specific performance is discretionary and not arbitrary. Mere delay without more extending up to the period of limitation cannot be a reason for a Court to exercise its discretion against giving a relief of specific performance. The suit was filed within the period of limitation, and delay is sanctioned by law.
Final Decision: The suit was partly decreed for possession by way of specific performance. The defendants were directed to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiffs within a period of 2 months, with the option for the plaintiffs to get the sale deed executed by execution through court.
Vinod K.Sharma, J.
1. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.4.2003 passed by learned courts below decreeing the suit for possession by way of specific performance filed by the plaintiff/respondents. The plaintiffs i.e. legal representatives of Matadin filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.9.1989. In the alternative, relief of recovery of Rs.1,05,000/- was also sought.
2. The plaintiff/respondents brought a suit by pleading that defendant No.1 Sampat was owner of agricultural land measuring 23 kanals 16 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Mauza Muzzafra, Tehsil Pataudi District Gurgaon. The said land was under mortgage for a sum of Rs.45,000/- with predecessors-in-interest of the appellants. An agreement to sell for a total consideration of Rs.1,05,000/- was entered into between the parties, out of which a sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid as earnest money. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 15.6.1990. It was also agreed that the amount of mortgage was to be adjusted, and balance was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed.
3. Matadin son of Ram Sarup died on 11.1.1991, it was pleaded that before his death Matadin was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance amount of consideration. Matadin appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 15.6.1990 with sufficient funds to cover the payment of balance amount, but defendant No.1 did not come present to the office of Sub Registrar. After the death of Matadin plaintiff/ respondents being legal heirs, are said to have approached the appellant/ defendants to perform their part of agreement to sell but it was postponed; hence the suit.
4. On notice suit was contested by raising preliminary objection that the plaintiffs had no cause of action to file the present suit. Locus standi of the plaintiff respondents to file the suit was also challenged. The defendant/appellants also raised a plea of estoppel.
5. On merit, it was stated that the defendant No.1 was neither owner nor in possession of the suit land at the time of alleged agreement as land bearing Killa No.7/1 (7-16) of Rect. Killa No. 38 was sold by him to Abhey Singh vide registered sale deed dated 11.2.1986 and Rect. No. 14 Killa No. 8 (8-0) and Rect No.38 Killa No. 6 (8-0) were owned and possessed by Devinder Singh, Shamsher Singh etc. Defendant No.1 even denied having entered into agreement to sell dated 15.9.1989. Other averments made in the plaint were also denied.
6. Defendants No.2 to 5 filed a separate written statement wherein it was alleged that they are owners in possession of the property in dispute since the year 19.4.1972 on the basis of decree passed in their favour. They also claimed to have installed a tube-well and constructed a kotha over the land in question, to which electric connection was also provided. They also denied having sold the property in question to any body.
7. In the replication averments made in the plaint were reiterated and that of the written statements were denied.
8. On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial court was pleased to frame the following issues:-
1. Whether the defendants had agreed to sell the land in dispute to Shri Matadin for consideration of Rs.1,05,000/- vide agreement in writing dated 15.9.1989? OPP
2. Whether Shri Matadin had paid to the defendant the sum of Rs.60,000/- on 15.9.89 on account of part payment of the price payable for the land? OPP
3. Whether Shri Matadin and after him the plaintiffs are ready to perform the part of agreement to sell dated 15.9.89? OPP
4. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the defendant was not owner of the land in suit on 15.9.89?
5. Whether the defendant had ceased to be owner of the suit land after the year 1972? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiffs are successor in interest and heirs of Matadin? OPD
7. Relief.
9. On appreciation of evidence learned
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
