Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L. Anand, J.
Aruna Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Ranbir Singh Dhanjal - Respondents
R.F.A. No. 2273 of 2000.
Decided On : 25 May, 2001
Specific Performance - Property Dispute - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 21, Section 22, Section 24, Section 29, Section 65, Section 70 - The court dismissed the suit for specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property and held that there was no valid agreement between the parties. The court also rejected the alternative relief sought by the plaintiff for recovery of the consideration paid. The court found that the money given by the plaintiff to the defendant was for maintenance and as a gift to his wife, and not as consideration for a property sale. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief under the Specific Relief Act or the Indian Contract Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of 1/4th share in a property and an alternative prayer for a money decree. The plaintiff alleged an oral agreement to sell the property to him, but the defendant denied the existence of such an agreement. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiff appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no valid agreement between the parties for the sale of the property. The court also rejected the alternative relief sought by the plaintiff for recovery of the consideration paid. The court held that the money given by the plaintiff to the defendant was for maintenance and as a gift to his wife, and not as consideration for a property sale.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was a valid agreement for the sale of the property between the parties. Other issues included the payment of consideration, breach of contract, entitlement to possession, and the applicability of the Foreign Citizen Regulation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a valid agreement for the sale of the property. The court also found that the money given by the plaintiff to the defendant was for maintenance and as a gift to his wife, and not as consideration for a property sale. As a result, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief under the Specific Relief Act or the Indian Contract Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief, and there was no order as to costs.
R.L. Anand, J. - Smt. Aruna Gupta (defendant No. 1 in the trial Court) daughter of Maharaj Singh Walia has filed the present regular first appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, who granted an alternative relief and passed a money decree for a sum of Rs. 15,29,417.15 with proportionate costs in favour of plaintiff Ranbir Singh Dhanjal with future interest @ 12% per annum on the decretal amount and further future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till payment. However, the suit of plaintiff Ranbir Singh Dhanjal against defendants No. 2 and 3, namely Ashima Gupta and Subhash Gupta was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case can be described in the following manner :-
Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of 1/4th share in the property Unit No. B-I-974, out of the property measuring 2400 Sq. Yards situated at Rajpura Road, Ludhiana as shown red in the site plant attached with the plaint and in the alternative he made a prayer for grant of money decree to the tune of Rs. 22,05,000/-. The case set up by the plaintiff in the trial Court was that he was a resident of Canada. He visited India in the month of January, 1994 and met defendant No. 1, who was widow at that time, at New Delhi Air Port and they married with each other on 20.2.1994 by performance of Anand Karaj ceremony at Delhi. Their marriage was also got registered with the Registrar of Marriages, New Delhi on 23.2.1994. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 along with defendants No. 2 and 3 was co-owner of the suit property described in the head-note of the plaint and it was locked in litigation with the tenant. Since defendants were in need of money for getting the property vacated from the tenant, therefore Aruna Gupta showed her willingness to dispose of her 1/4th share in the property and entered into an oral agreement to sell the same to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 20 lacs in the presence of Arun Sehgal and Sonu. Besides, defendant No. 3 also obtained Rs. 4.55 lacs from the plaintiff for getting vacated her share in the property and out of the said amount Rs. 2.5 lacs were returned by her to the plaintiff within few days and a writing to that effect was executed. On the assurance of defendant No. 1 that she will execute and get registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after the same is vacated by the tenant, the plaintiff paid her total sale consideration of Rs. 20 lacs. Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 15 lacs were paid through Hongkong Bank, New Delhi by withdrawing the same from N.R.I. account of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had not insisted for written agreement of sale on account of his full faith in his would be wife. In November 1994, the plaintiff came to India and pursued the litigation. On 4.4.1995, the suit between Aruna Gupta and other co-owners with the tenant was got dismissed and on account of this long drawn litigation defendant No. 3 approached him for paying further sum of Rs. 4.55 lacs and the plaintiff paid the same. However, defendant No. 3 paid Rs. 2.50 lacs through bank drafts and the balance was acknowledged by him through separate writing. However, to the utter shock, defendant No. 1 started humiliating the plaintiff and started backing out from her agreement and seeing her intention, the plaintiff sent notices to her through his counsel Mr. C.P. Sen, Advocate calling her to execute and register sale deed in his favour, but she refused to accept the service of the notice and the same were returned back with the report of refusal. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 failed to perform her part of the contract whereas he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and (sic) No. 051-605202-054 and another sum of Rs. 3,77,422.63 against account No. 051-605202-055. This amount was given by the plaintiff to her in June, 1994 fo
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
