Back
2014 Supreme(P&H) 1541
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
Sukha Singh – Appellant
Versus
Balwant Singh (since deceased) through his LRs. and Another – Respondents
R.S.A. No. 1540 of 1987
Decided On : 30.5.2014
For the Appellant:H.R. Bhardwaj and S.K. Batish, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate and Ms. Sukhmani Tiwana, Advocate.
The delay in filing the suit and the conduct of the plaintiff defeated the rights of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract.
Headnote:
specific performance - land dispute - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20, Section 22 - The court discussed the misreading and misconstruing of the agreement (Ex.PA) and the delay in filing the suit, which defeated the rights of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract. The court also addressed the entitlement of the plaintiff to refund of the earnest money paid to defendant no. 1.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance as defendant no. 1 allegedly agreed to sell land to the plaintiff, but later sold it to defendant no. 2. The plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants, leading to the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the suit and the conduct of the plaintiff defeated the rights of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract. The court also held that the earnest money should be refunded to the plaintiff with interest.
Issues: The issues included whether defendant no. 1 sold the land to defendant no. 2, whether defendant no. 2 had knowledge of the agreement executed by defendant no. 1 in favor of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land, whether defendant no. 2 was a bona fide purchaser, and whether the suit was within limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in filing the suit and the conduct of the plaintiff defeated the rights of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract. The court also held that the earnest money should be refunded to the plaintiff with interest.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgments and decrees of both the courts below were set aside. Defendant no. 1 was directed to make the payment of earnest money received at the time of execution of the agreement to the plaintiff along with interest. If defendant no. 1 failed to make the payment, the plaintiff would be entitled to recovery from him by way of execution.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
1. This regular second appeal of defendant no. 2 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1984 passed by learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Patiala whereby suit for specific performance filed by respondent no. 1 plaintiff has been decreed and against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.1987 passed by learned District Judge, Patiala whereby appeal preferred by appellant has been dismissed.
2. For convenience sake, hereinafter, reference to parties is being made as they are arrayed in civil suit.
3. 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 as pleaded in plaint for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that defendant no. 1 Chhotta Ram agreed to sell the land measures 56 kanals 5 marlas vide agreement dated 20.08.1969 (Ex.PA) for a total consideration of Rs. 7,000/- in favour of plaintiff and on that day, plaintiff- Balwant Singh allegedly paid Rs. 2,500/- as earnest money to defendant no. 1. It was also mentioned in the agreement that possession of the allegedly sold land had been given to the vendee in part performance of the agreement (Ex.PA). It was also pleaded that defendant no. 1 had to pay instalments regarding the land in dispute, therefore, he had agreed to execute the sale deed after payment of all instalments and on getting the proprietary rights in the suit land, but defendant no. 1 kept on replying in negative. Defendant no. 1 and Kapur Singh, father of defendant no. 2 Sukha Singh wanted to take forcible possession of the suit land, therefore, plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against defendant no. 1 Chhotta Ram. During the pendency of that suit, the plaintiff came to know on 13.09.1977 that defendant no.1 had sold the suit land to defendant no. 2 Sukha Singh for alleged sale consideration of Rs. 8,000/-. The plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants on 15.10.1979. Defendant no. 2 was having full knowledge of the agreement (Ex.PA) because the land had been sold by defendant no. 1 through attorney Kapoor Singh, who is none else but father of defendant no. 2. Hence, suit was filed.
4. Upon notice, defendant no. 2 resisted the suit and filed written statement with the averments that he had purchased the land in dispute from defendant no. 1 for consideration of Rs. 8,000/-. He got the possession of the land from defendant no. 1 on 18.08.1977 at the time of execution of sale deed. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land. It was also pleaded that defendant no. 2 had no knowledge with regard to agreement (Ex.PA) allegedly executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant no. 2 is a bona fide purchaser for consideration and without notice. It was also pleaded that suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
5. Defendant no. 1 filed his separate written statement and admitted that he had executed the agreement (Ex.PA). It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but he could not do so due to fear of father of defendant no. 2.
6. Replication was filed in which allegations contained in plaint were reiterated and those contained in written statement were denied.
7. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Court of first instance framed following issues:
1. Whether defendant no. 1 had sold the suit land to defendant no. 2 through sale deed dated 18.08.1977? OPD No. 1
2. Whether defendant no. 2 had knowledge of the agreement of sale dated 30.08.1969 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff? OPD 2
2A. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land? OPP
4. Whether defendant no. 2 is a bona fide purchaser for consideration and without notice? OPD 2
5. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP
6. Relief.
An additional issue was also framed which reads as under:
"Whethe
