SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(P&H) 155

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
Manjeet Singh - Appellant
Vs.
Prem Chand and others - Respondents
RSA No.131 of 2015
Decided On : 07-02-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vivek Suri.
For the Respondents: Mrs. Munisha Gandhi, with Ms. Salina Chalana

The Court upheld the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the relief of possession of the suit property by specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 18.01.2004.

Headnote:

specific performance - agreement for sale - Specific Relief Act - [FACT OF THE CASE] This is the second appeal of the legal representative of the first defendant, in a suit filed by respondents no.1 to 4 herein (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiffs), seeking possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of an agreement of sale, stated to have been entered into between the parties. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The Court found that the late defendant made every effort to frustrate the right of the plaintiffs, but ultimately in his written statement admitted to having appended his signatures on the agreement. [ISSUES] The issues framed by the learned Civil Judge included the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the relief of possession as owner through specific performance of agreement to sell, permanent injunction, and the maintainability of the suit. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The Court held that the contentions of the plaintiffs were duly proved and as such, the pivotal issue as to their entitlement to the relief of possession of the suit property by specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 18.01.2004 was to be decided in their favour. [FINAL DECISION] The suit was decreed as such.

JUDGMENT :

Amol Rattan Singh, J.

This is the second appeal of the legal representative of the first defendant, in a suit filed by respondents no.1 to 4 herein (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiffs), seeking possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of an agreement of sale, stated to have been entered into between the parties. A decree for permanent injunction was also prayed for, restraining the first defendant from alienating the suit property in any manner, other than to the plaintiffs. (The second defendant impleaded in the suit was the Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA), through its Estate Officer at Mohali).

2. The facts, as taken from the judgments of the Courts below, are that, as per the plaintiffs, the first defendant, Jai Singh, who is shown to have died even during the pendency of the suit before the learned Civil Judge, had entered into an agreement with them on 18.10.2004, for the sale of industrial plot no.D-10, measuring 1250 sq. yards, situated in the Industrial Area, Phase-I, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, for a consideration of Rs.55,50,000/-. An amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is stated to have been paid by a demand draft, with Rs.50,000/- also paid in cash to Jai Singh (hereinafter to be referred to as the first defendant), at the time of entering into the agreement. The last date by which the sale deed was to be executed and registered, was fixed as 18.01.2005, with an undertaking stated to have been given in the agreement, that the first defendant would obtain the NDC/NOC/Income Tax clearance from the concerned departments, 7 days prior to 18.01.2005.

The plaintiffs were to incur all the expenses necessary for execution of the sale deed and the first defendant was to hand over all documents and possession of the property at the time of the completion of the transaction.

It had also been agreed upon that the first plaintiff would get the sale deed executed either in his own name or in the name of his nominee/nominees. In case the first defendant did not honour his part of the contract, the first plaintiff was entitled to have the suit property transferred through a suit for specific performance and also have the right to prosecute the first defendant by way of criminal proceedings, in addition to getting damages equal to double the amount of the earnest money paid by him.

In case of breach of contract by the plaintiffs, the earnest money was to stand forfeited in favour of the first defendant.

3. It was further contended in the plaint that the first defendant did not take any interest “for completion of the bargain before 18.01.2005” due to which the plaintiffs issued a registered notice to him on 01.01.2005, by way of a reminder. It was also stated to have been intimated to the first defendant that plaintiff no.1 would remain present on 18.01.2005 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mohali, alongwith the balance sale consideration and expenses for purchase of stamp papers etc.

Defendant no.1 not having responded to the notice issued, the plaintiffs sent a telegram on 15.01.2005 and also intimated him by way of courier service, with a copy sent to Darshan Singh and Sons, property dealer, who had got the bargain settled, as contended.

It was further contended that the first plaintiff had also provided the names of his nominees, i.e. plaintiffs no.2 to 4 and had also filed an application before the second defendant, i.e. PUDA, for the issuance of a 'No Objection Certificate' for transfer of the property in favour of plaintiffs no. 2 to 4 (erroneously shown as plaintiffs no.2 to 5 in the array of parties before the Civil Judge, as also in his judgment).

However, the NOC was not issued because the first defendant did not clear the dues payable by him to PUDA, intentionally, as alleged by the plaintiffs.

4. It was further contended that plaintiff no.1 however still remained present on 18.01.2005 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mohali, alongwith a pay order for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and requisit


















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top