Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.C. Gupta, J.
Ram Dass - Appellants
Versus
Shisha Singh - Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No. 2781 of 1980.
Decided On : 5 April, 2001
specific performance - contract of sale - Indian Registration Act - Specific Relief Act - [specific performance] - [contract of sale] - [Indian Registration Act, Section 49] - [Specific Relief Act, Section 19(b)]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of land against the defendants. The defendants had executed a mortgage deed in favor of the plaintiffs' father and subsequently entered into an agreement to sell the land to the plaintiffs. The defendants later sold the land to third parties, and the plaintiffs sought specific performance of the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants had executed the agreement to sell the land to the plaintiffs and had received earnest money. The court also found that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, while the defendants were not willing to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiffs. The court affirmed the findings of the trial court in favor of the appellants for specific performance of the agreement to sell.
Issues: The issues included the execution of the agreement, the readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs, the rights of the transferees, the validity of the sale deeds, and the competency of the defendants to sell the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants had executed the agreement to sell the land to the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The court also found that the transferees had notice of the agreement and were not bona fide purchasers. The court further held that the defendants were competent to sell the land to the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the appellate court, and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court. The court decreed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell in favor of the appellants and directed the respondents to execute and register the sale deed in favor of the appellants.
K.C. Gupta, J. - This regular second appeal is directed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1980 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sangrur whereby he accepted the appeal and set aside the judgement and decree dated 15.6.1978 passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Sangrur in a suit for specific performance of contract of sale dated 7.1.1974 and passed a decree only for the recovery of Rs. 7,000/- with costs against Shisha Singh, respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1). However, their suit for specific performance of agreement for sale was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Shisha Singh, respondent No. 1, Vir Kaur widow of Ujagar Singh, respondent No. 2 and Piara Singh, respondent No. 3 were owners in possession in equal shares of the land measuring 88 kanals 9 marlas situate in village Rogla District Sangrur.
3. Shisha Singh, respondent No. 1 was in possession as a co-sharer of land measuring 16 kanals comprised in Killa No. 111/15(8-0) and 111/16(8-0) according to the Jamabandi for the year 1972-73. He had mortgaged the aforesaid land (suit land) being co-sharer in possession in favour of Ram Kalan son of Sukh Ram father of the appellants for Rs. 5,000/- on 18.6.1968 vide mortgage deed Ex. PW 9/A. He had created additional mortgage on the aforesaid land on 20.6.1972 after the receipt of Rs. 3,000/- more. In this way, the mortgagee amount was Rs. 8,000/-.
4. It was next averred that respondent No. 1 Shisha Singh on 7.1.1974 entered into an agreement to sell Ex.P1 in respect of the aforesaid land with the appellants for Rs. 12,000/- and received Rs. 1,000/- as earnest money. He promised to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 3,000/- by 25.6.1974. In the alternative, he agreed that in case he was unable to execute the sale deed by the aforesaid date, then he would pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation besides returning the amount of Rs. 9,000/-.
5. It was also averred that respondent No. 1 Shisha Singh did not execute the sale deed as per the agreement dated 7.1.1974 inspite of the fact that the appellants were ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in their favour. On the other hand, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on 6.6.1974 executed sale deed of land measuring 24 kanals including Killa No. 111/16 in favour of respondents 4 and 5. They further executed sale deed of land measuring 47 kanals 6 marlas out of the total land measuring 88 kanals 9 marlas in favour of respondent Nos. 6 to 10 including killa No. 111/15(8-0) vide sale deed dated 4.6.1974.
6. It was also averred that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had dishonestly executed the sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 10 and respondent Nos. 4 to 10 knew about the existence of the agreement to sell of the suit land in favour of the appellants before the execution of the sale deeds in their favour and even the appellants had informed about the agreement in their favour but still they got the sale deed executed.
7. It was next averred that appellants were always ready and willing to get the sale deed of the suit land executed in their favour and were still ready and willing and were having the balance amount alongwith the stamp and registration expenses but the respondents had refused to get the sale deed executed.
8. With these allegations, suit for specific performance of contract of sale dated 7.1.1974 was filed. Respondent Nos. 11 to 21 who were legal heirs of Ram Kalan were impleaded as proforma respondents.
9. Respondent No. 1 Shisha Singh, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 namely Joginder Singh and Sukhwant Singh, respondent Nos. 6 to 10 namely Chandi Ram, Niranjan Singh, Darshan Singh, Shera Singh and Daulat Ram filed separate written statements.
10. Respondent No. 1 Shisha Singh in his written statement denied that he had executed agreement Ex.P1 to sell land measuring 16 kanals in favour of the appellants. He, However, admitted that the land was under mortgage with Ram Kalan father of the appellants for a sum of R
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
