Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.
Raminder Singh
Versus
Sham Lal
Second Appeal No. 1078 of 1975,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 23, 1983
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - AGREEMENT TO SELL - PRIOR AGREEMENT - LIS PENDENS - INJUNCTION - REGISTRATION ACT, SEC. 77 - RELIEF - FORM OF DECREE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 entered into an agreement to sell houses on January 3, 1971. Defendant No. 1, the owner of the houses, had previously entered into an agreement to sell the same houses to Defendant No. 2 on December 27, 1970. Defendant No. 2 filed a suit for specific performance of the earlier agreement, obtained an injunction against Defendant No. 1 selling the houses to the Plaintiff, and ultimately lost the suit. Meanwhile, Defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed in favor of the Plaintiff, but the Sub-Registrar refused to register it due to the injunction. After the injunction was lifted, Defendant No. 1 executed another sale deed in favor of Defendant No. 2, who registered it despite the Plaintiff's pending suit for specific performance of the January 3, 1971 agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the January 3, 1971 agreement. The Court found that the earlier agreement in favor of Defendant No. 2 was unenforceable after the dismissal of his suit for specific performance. The Court also held that the sale deed executed by Defendant No. 1 in favor of Defendant No. 2 was void as it violated the principle of lis pendens and the injunction order.
Issues: 1. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the January 3, 1971 agreement. 2. Whether the earlier agreement in favor of Defendant No. 2 was enforceable after the dismissal of his suit for specific performance. 3. Whether the sale deed executed by Defendant No. 1 in favor of Defendant No. 2 was void due to lis pendens and the injunction order. 4. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to the relief of specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the January 3, 1971 agreement because: - The Plaintiff had pleaded and proved that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. - The earlier agreement in favor of Defendant No. 2 was unenforceable after the dismissal of his suit for specific performance. - The sale deed executed by Defendant No. 1 in favor of Defendant No. 2 was void due to lis pendens and the injunction order. 2. The Court held that the earlier agreement in favor of Defendant No. 2 was unenforceable after the dismissal of his suit for specific performance because: - The agreement was no longer binding on Defendant No. 1 after the dismissal of the suit. - Defendant No. 2 could not use the agreement as a defense to the Plaintiff's suit since he could not enforce it himself. 3. The Court held that the sale deed executed by Defendant No. 1 in favor of Defendant No. 2 was void due to lis pendens and the injunction order because: - The sale deed was executed during the pendency of the Plaintiff's suit for specific performance. - The injunction order restrained Defendant No. 1 from selling the houses to anyone other than the Plaintiff. 4. The Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to the relief of specific performance because: - The Plaintiff had pleaded and proved that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. - The Plaintiff had a valid agreement with Defendant No. 1 for the sale of the houses.
Final Decision: The Court modified the decree and ordered specific performance of the January 3, 1971 agreement in favor of the Plaintiff by Defendant No. 1 on deposit of Rs. 1500.00 within two months. The Court also directed Defendant No. 2 to join in executing the conveyance-deed. In case the defendants failed to execute the conveyance-deed, the Plaintiff was entitled to get the same executed through Court. The appellants were liable to pay the costs of appeal.
1. This is a second appeal by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Chandigarh, dt. 19th May, 1975.
2. Briefly, the facts are that Mehar Singh defendant No. 1 was the owner of two houses situated in Mani Majra, which were under mortgage with Jagir Singh defendant No. 3 for a sum of 3,000.00 . Ire entered into an agreement to sell the houses with Raminder Singh defendant No. 2 vide agreement deed dt. 27th December, 1970 (Exhibit D-1). Later, an 3rd January, 1971, he made an agreement for sale of the said houses with the plaintiff for a sum of 4,800.00 . The agreement to sell is Exhibit P. 7. Out of the consideration amount of Rs. 300.00 was paid by the plaintiff as advance to him. Out of the balance. a sums of Rs 3,000.00 was to be paid by the plaintiff to the mortgagee and Rs. 1500.00 to defendant No. 1 at the time of execution of the sale deed which was to be got executed within one week. On 5th January, 1971, a sale deed was executed by defendant No. 1 in his favour on a judicial stamp paper of Rupees 300.00 and was presented before the Sub-Registrar. Jagir Singh raised an objection before the Sub-Registrar that defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell the house to him and, Therefore, the sale-deed be not registered. The Sub-Registrar accepted his request and did not register the sale deed.
3. Defendant No. 2. on 11th January, 1971, instituted a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge IInd Class, Chandigarh, for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 27th December, 1970, Exhibit D. 1, and obtained an ad interim injunction against defendant No. 1, restraining him to sell the houses to the plaintiff. Ultimately. the suit was dismissed on 28th February, 1972, on the ground that defendant No. 2 was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Defendant No. 1, on the same day, executed two fresh sale deeds, Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 in favour of the plaintiff and those were Presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 appeared before the Sub-Registrar and represented to him that they wanted to file an anneal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge, IInd Class and therefore. the sale deeds be not registered for some time. The Sub-Registrar accepted their prayer. However, they did not file any appeal.
4. On 4th May, 1972, defendant No. 2 got a sale deed executed in his favour regarding the houses fromn defendant No. 1. On 5th May, 1972, Shame Lal filed the present suit for specific performance of the agreement dt. 3rd January, 1971. and obtained an ad interim injunction restraining defendant No.1 from transferring the houses in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 or any other person till further orders. It appears that at the time of filing the suit, it was not within his knowledge that defendant No. 1 had already executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2. However, in spite of the injunction order. defendant No. 2 got the sale deed registered on 24th May. 1972. Thereafter. the plaintiff amended the plaint and it was pleaded that as the sale deed was executed and registered in spite of the injunction order, it was illegal, void and liable to be cancelled.
5. The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who inter alia pleaded that there was no agreement to sell dt. 3rd January, 1971, in favour of the plaintiff. They further stated that these was a pri or agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.2 and that defendant No. 1 had sold the house to him in view of that agreement Consequently. the sale could not be challenged. He further pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to specific Performance of the agreement dt. 3rd January. 1971, Some other pleas were also taken but they do not survive in the appeal.
6. The trial Court held that there was an agreement of sale by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 4,800.00 and that defendant No. 2 had a prior agreement from defendant No. 1 in his favour and, t
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
