Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mahesh Grover, J.
Amar Singh
Versus
Amarjit Singh
Decided On : MAY 12, 2009
(B) Specific Relief Act,1963--Agreement to sell--The vendors were proceeded ex parte while respondent no.5 contested the claim of the appellants and again admitted the agreements to sell in question. What is essential to notice also is that the vendors never denied the agreements to sell even in the proceedings which were initiated at the behest of respondent no.5 in which the appellants and proforma respondents were also contesting defendants--Once the agreements to sell were admitted by the vendors themselves, the appellants were not required to prove anything further and the Courts below should have accepted the same straight-away as it was the best form of evidence. (P.24)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.8, R. 3, 4 & 5--Denial of fact--It is not sufficient for a defendant to deny generally the grounds raised in the plaint nor any evasive denial is sufficient. Rather, they go on to say that every denial should be specific and if not being so, then by necessary implication, it has to be taken to be admitted and in such an eventuality, the Court may, in its discretion, require any fact to be proved otherwise than by admission. (P.20)
(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.8, R. 3, 4 and 5--Denial of fact--If an admission is made by a party, then it is in the discretion of the Court to warrant any further proof if it thinks it to be necessary, but in the absence of it, the admission is necessary proof of the existence of a fact. (P. 20)
1. C. M. No.10055-C of 2002 in view of the fact that C. M. No.10053-C of 2002 filed for condonation of delay of two days in making deficiency of court fee good stands allowed vide order dated 14.12.2002, this application is accepted and delay of two days in the filing of the appeal is condoned. R. S. A. No.4392 of 2002.
2. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 30.11.2000 and 10.6.2002 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), patiala (hereinafter described as the trial court) and the Additional District Judge, patiala (referred to hereinafter as the First appellate Court) vide which the suit and the appeal of the plaintiffs-appellants were dismissed.
3. The appellants had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreements to sell dated 19.5.1989 and 30.4.1991 pertaining to House No.204-A, street No.1, Dashmesh Nagar, Patiala (for short, the suit property ). It was averred that defendants-respondent Nos.1 to 3, being owners, offered to sell the suit property to mohinder Singh son of Atma Singh for a sum of Rs.1,27,000.00 and entered into an agreement on 19.5.1989. The said agreement was signed by respondent No.1 in his personal capacity and by Piara Singh - defendant/ respondent No.4, being guardian, on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 as they were minors at that time. The full and final payment of amount of Rs.1,27,000.00 was paid by Mohinder Singh and he took possession of the suit property and the proposed date of execution of the sale deed was fixed as 20.11.1989. Piara Singh also undertook to obtain necessary permission from the guardian Court for execution of the sale deed with regard to the share of the minors in the suit property. As the said permission was not granted till 20.11.1989, a fresh agreement was executed on 30.4.1991 and the proposed date of execution of the sale deed was fixed as 29.4.1992. In the meantime, Mohinder Singh met with an accident on 11.12.1991 and died leaving behind the appellants and respondent Nos.6 to 8 as his legal heirs. According to the appellants, respondent Nos.1 to 4 were requested to execute the sale deed, but they had been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. In the meanwhile, Mohinder Kaur defendant/ respondent No.5, who was working as a maid servant in the house of deceased-Mohinder Singh took forcible possession of the suit property and set up a false and unregistered Will dated 13.8.1991 in her favour and filed a suit titled "mohinder Kaur versus Amarjeet Singh and others" on the basis of that Will in which the vendors were also arrayed as defendant Nos.1 to 3, but she withdrew that suit against them vide order dated 22.10.1994 giving rise to a suspicion in the mind of the appellants and proforma respondent Nos.6 to 8 that a sale deed was going to be executed in her favour. It was pleaded that respondent No.1 to 4 had no right to execute a sale deed in favour of respondent No.5 or any other person except in favour of the appellants and proforma respondent Nos.6 to 8 being natural legal heirs of Mohinder Singh, but they refused to do so. It was further pleaded that respondent No.5 was requested to vacate the possession and deliver the same to the appellants and proforma respondent Nos.6 to 8, but she also declined to do so. The appellants claimed that they were entitled to the specific performance of the contract for execution of the sale deed in their favour on the basis of agreements dated 19.5.1989 and 30.4.1991. It was averred that if the specific performance was not possible due to any reason, then only the appellants be held entitled to the refund of the amount of rs.1,27,000.00 along with the equal sum as special and general damages or the interest on the sale price. The possession of respondent No.5 over the the suit property was stated to be that of a trespasser and so, a decree for possession was prayed to be passed against her.
4. In the amended plaint, the appellants
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
