Back
2014 Supreme(P&H) 868
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
Mangat Singh - Appellant(s)
Versus
Rakesh Kumar Gupta and another - Respondent(s)
RSA No.91 of 2010 (O & M)
Decided On: 06.05.2014
Advocate Appeared
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Ms. Ritu Pathak, Advocate for
Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a document surrounded by suspicious circumstances and clouded with doubts cannot be a ground for the grant of discretionary relief of specific performance. Additionally, the burden of proving the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence is on the party in the dominating position, especially in a fiduciary relationship.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell - Punjab Stamp Rules, 1934 - Suspicious Circumstances - Refund of Earnest Money - [Specific Performance] - [Agreement to Sell] - [Punjab Stamp Rules, 1934, Section 28(xiii)] - The court found that the agreement to sell was clouded with suspicious circumstances as it did not bear the signatures of the defendant, and the stamp paper did not contain the particulars of the purchaser on its backside as required by the Punjab Stamp Rules, 1934. The court held that the document was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and was a forged and fabricated document. The court also ordered the refund of the earnest money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant with interest at 6% per annum from the date of payment till the refund.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell, alleging that the defendant had executed an agreement to sell the land to the plaintiff but failed to clear a loan or execute the sale deed. The defendant denied the existence of the agreement and claimed that the plaintiff had obtained his signatures on blank papers as security for a loan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the agreement to sell was clouded with suspicious circumstances and was a forged and fabricated document. The court also ordered the refund of the earnest money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant with interest at 6% per annum from the date of payment till the refund.
Issues: The issues included the existence and validity of the agreement to sell, the plaintiff's readiness to perform the contract, the locus standi of the plaintiff, the maintainability of the suit, and the time bar.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the agreement to sell was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and was a forged and fabricated document. The court also ordered the refund of the earnest money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant with interest at 6% per annum from the date of payment till the refund.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, and modified the relief for the refund of the amount paid to the defendant with interest at 6% per annum from the date of receipt till payment.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
This regular second appeal of defendant no.1 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Karnal whereby suit for possession by way of specific performance and declaration filed by respondent no.1plaintiff has been decreed and against the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal whereby appeal preferred by appellant has been dismissed.
For convenience sake, hereinafter, reference to parties is being made as per their status in civil suit.
The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. In brief, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell with the averments that on 14.11.2000, defendant no.1 had executed an agreement to sell the suit land to the plaintiff on payment of sale consideration of 2,25,000/per acre and he had paid him 2,70,000/as earnest money at that time. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 09.10.2001 and prior thereto, defendant no.1 was liable to repay the loan availed by him creating a charge over the suit property, but despite repeated requests, defendant no.1 did not clear the said loan nor he was present before the Sub Registrar, Karnal on 09.10.2001 i.e. date fixed for execution of the sale deed. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar along with registration charges etc. and got marked his presence. The plaintiff was/is and has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. However, defendant no.1 executed sale deed no.7135 dated 12.12.2001 with regard to land measuring 16 kanals in favour of defendant no.2 on the basis of jamabandi for the year 199697 claiming himself to be the owner of 1/6th share in land measuring 172 kanals in village Mehanmati, but share of defendant no.1 in joint holdings was only 28 kanals 13 marlas out of which he had sold away 16 kanals to defendant no.2. Defendant no.1 was left with only 12 kanals 13 marlas which was insufficient to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement in question. The plaintiff served notices dated 10.12.2002 and 22.12.2003 upon defendant no.1 to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour on the basis of agreement to sell dated 14.11.2000, but to no avail. Hence by filing the suit, a prayer was made for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 14.11.2000 and for declaration that sale deed dated 12.12.2001 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is illegal and the same be set aside.
Upon notice, defendant no.1 filed written statement and resisted the suit taking preliminary objections of locus standi, cause of action, limitation and fraud. It was pleaded that defendant no.1 had borrowed a sum of `50,000/from the plaintiff for his domestic requirements on 20.10.1999 and in lieu of that, the plaintiff had obtained signatures of defendant no.1 on blank papers and also in the register of petition writer as security of borrowed amount. On receipt of legal notice dated 02.11.2000, defendant no.1 came to know that the alleged agreement is a forged and manipulated document and on that day, defendant no.1 had paid `25,000/to the plaintiff in the presence of Amrik Singh son of Ajaib Singh. Thereafter, the matter was hushed up and remaining amount of `25,000/was to be paid within six months from 02.11.2000. It was further pleaded that on 29.11.2001, defendant no.1 had received another notice and came to know about the alleged agreement to sell dated 14.11.2000 which was created after receiving the remaining amount of `25,000/in the month of November, 2001 and the plaintiff had agreed to return the blank papers and stamps etc. duly signed by him, after receiving remaining amount of `25,000/but the plaintiff
