Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.R.Majithia, J.
Dalbara Singh
Versus
Chhaja Singh
Regular First Appeal No. 492 of 1979,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 27, 1992
AGREEMENT TO SELL - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - INJUNCTION - VALIDITY OF SALE DEEDS - REDEMPTION OF MORTGAGED LAND - COSTS OF IMPROVEMENTS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14/06/1972, entered into with the vendor, Chhaja Singh, regarding a land measuring 91 Kanals 3 marlas. The plaintiffs claimed that they had paid Rs. 25,500 as earnest money to the vendor at the time of execution of the agreement and the remaining amount of Rs. 16,500 was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. The plaintiffs also filed a suit for injunction restraining the vendor from transferring the land to anyone else except the plaintiffs. The vendor, in his defense, denied the execution of the agreement to sell and claimed that the plaintiffs had secured his thumb impression on several papers in the fields on 18/12/1972 and the agreement to sell might have been forged on those papers. The vendor also claimed that he had entered into agreements to sell the land to other defendants and had executed sale deeds in their favor.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the agreement to sell dated 14/06/1972 was not executed by the vendor and that no earnest money was paid to him. The court also found that the agreements to sell dated 1/07/1972 and 22/12/1972 were valid and that the sale deeds executed in pursuance of those agreements were also valid. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance and injunction. The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the trial court.
Issues: 1. Whether the vendor executed an agreement to sell the suit land to the plaintiffs vide agreement deed dated 14-6-72? 2. Whether the plaintiffs paid Rs. 25,500 as earnest money to defendant Chhaja Singh at the time of execution of agreement dated 146-1972? 3. Whether the decree in Suit No. 737 decided on 1-3-73 passed against Chhaja Singh was illegal as alleged? 4. Whether the agreements to sell the suit land dated 1-7-72 and 22-12-72 are fictitious? 5. Whether the sale deeds dated 15-12-1972 and 28-3-74 in favor of the defendants are valid, if so, its effect? 6. Whether the decree obtained by Ralla Singh defendant restraining Chhaja Singh defendant No. 1 from selling one half of the suit land to anybody else except Ralla Singh on 14-3-1974 is void and is not binding on the plaintiffs? 7. Whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract? 8. Relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court upheld the findings of the trial court that the agreement to sell dated 14/06/1972 was not executed by the vendor and that no earnest money was paid to him. The court also upheld the findings that the agreements to sell dated 1/07/1972 and 22/12/1972 were valid and that the sale deeds executed in pursuance of those agreements were also valid. The court held that the plaintiffs had fabricated false agreement to sell for using it in judicial proceedings to claim title to the property of the vendor, which they knew to be forged. The court also held that the consent decree injuncting the vendor from transferring the property in any manner to anybody else does not invalidate the transaction of sales entered into prior to the decree and subsequent thereafter and the plaintiffs cannot obtain any benefit of the consent decree for injunction in their favor in the instant case.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court.
1. The facts as enfolded in the plaint, briefly, are :-
Defendant - respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the vendor) owned land measuring 91 Kanals 3 marlas situated in revenue estate of Sheikhan Majra (hereinafter referred to as the suit land); that the same was under mortgage with the plaintiff-appellants (hereinafter the plaintiffs); that the vendor entered into an agreement to sell dated 14/06/1972 with the plaintiffs regarding the land owned by him for Rs. 74,000; in that agreement, it was stipulated that the mortgage amount of Rs. 32,000 payable to the plaintiffs would be adjusted against the sale price, an amount of Rs. 25,500.00 was paid to the vendor in cash as earnest money by the plaintiffs at the time of the execution of the agreement to sell and the remaining amount of Rs. 16,500 was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed, which was to be done by 25/01/1973; that the plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 73 7/12/1972 against the vendor and some of the defendants for an injunction restraining them from transferring the land, the subject matter of the agreement to sell, to anybody else except the plaintiffs; that the suit was decreed on 1/03/1973; that the vendor in contravention of the agreement to sell dated 14/06/1972 and the Civil Courts decree passed in Civil Suit No. 73 7/03/1973 transferred the suit land to the defendant-respondents by sale deeds executed on 15/12/1972, Dec. 15, 197 2/03/1974 and Ma 27/03/1974; that on the strength of agreement to sell they were entitled to a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell and, in the alternative, for recovery of Rs. 25,500.
2 The defendants denied the execution of agreement to sell dated 14/06/1972 in favour of the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs with the help of Jarnail Singh, Dhera Singh and Ujagar Singh secured the thumb impression of Chhaja Singh vendor on several papers in the fields on 18/12/1972 and the agreement to sell might have been forged on those papers; that an FIR in this respect was also lodged at Police Station, Mubarakpur; that Narain Singh and Sardara Singh, plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 were arrested by the police in pursuance of the First Information Report; that a decree of injunction dated 1/03/1973 was obtained by the plaintiffs by misleading and coercing the vendor; that some of the defendants were parties to suit No. 737 instituted on 14/12/1972; that on the statement of the plaintiffs in that suit, they were dropped from the array of defendants and the consent decree was obtained against the vendor by misguiding him; that two sale deeds dated 15/12/1972 were executed by the vendor in favour of the defendants regarding one half of the suit land in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 1/07/1972; that these sale deeds were registered on 12/03/1974 and Ma 13/03/1974 respectively; that thereafter the vendor entered into an agreement to sell dated 22/12/1972 regarding the remaining one half of the suit land with Ralla Singh and in pursuance thereto two sale deeds dated 28/03/1974 were executed in favour of the assignees of the vendee; that no consideration was paid to the vendor under the alleged agreement to sell dated 14/06/1972 in favour of the plaintiffs.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
1. Whether Chhaja Singh, defendant entered into an agreement to sell the suit land to the plaintiffs vide agreement deed dated 14-6-72 ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs paid Rs. 25,500 as earnest money to defendant Chhaja Singh at the time of execution of agreement dated 146-1972 ? OPP
3. Whether the decree in Suit No. 737 decided on 1-3-73 passed against Chhaja Singh was illegal as alleged ? OPD 4. Whether the agreements to sell the suit land dated 1-7-72 and 22-12-72 are fictitious ? OPP
5. Whether the sale deeds dated 15-12-1972 and 28-3-74 in favour of the defendants are valid, if so, its effect ? OPD 6. Whether the decree obtained by Ralla Singh defendant restraining Chhaj
AI
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
