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) 1274

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Ravinder Kumar and another - Appellants
Versus
Ved Parkash Sethi - Respondent
RSA No.3647 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 31-08-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate.

The central legal point established is that a valid agreement to sell for specific immovable property is enforceable under Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Headnote:

Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 10

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for possession based on an agreement to sell a three-storey shop. Defendants claimed it was a loan transaction and disputed the enforceability of the agreement.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court decreed the suit, finding that there was a valid agreement to sell and the plaintiff was ready to perform. The appellate court upheld the decision.

Issues: Dispute over the nature of the transaction and the enforceability of the agreement to sell.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the agreement to sell was enforceable under Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as it was a concluded contract for the sale of specific immovable property.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the concurrent finding of fact by the lower courts was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Defendants are in Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below.

2. Plaintiff had filed a suit praying for decree of possession by way of specific relief of agreement to sell dated 08.09.2005 executed by defendants-appellants in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It is the case of the plaintiff that a constructed three storey shop was agreed to be sold for a total sale consideration of Rs.35,50,000/-. The shop is situated in the area of Abohar Mandi and Rs.5,00,000/- was paid as earnest money. The remaining payment was to be made in installments as Rs.15,00,000/- was payable on 05.11.2005 and the possession was to be delivered to the plaintiff and date for execution and registration of sale deed was fixed as 05.01.2006 when another payment of Rs.10,00,000/- was agreed to be paid to the defendants.

3. It was further agreed that remaining payment of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be payable after 15 months of the registration of the sale deed along with interest at the rate of 1% per month. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendants deliberately avoided the payment of Rs.15,00,000/- and therefore, a writing was executed on 17.11.2005 when the period of payment of Rs.15,00,000/- was extended and delivery of possession was delayed up to 15.12.2005.

4. Defendants in the written statement pleaded that they had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 1% per month and the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendants on blank papers as security. Defendants further asserted that the plaintiff started demanding the said amount but since defendants were unable to pay the amount, therefore, again signatures were obtained on the blank stamp papers from the defendants. Defendants further pleaded that the amount was repaid but, however, plaintiff did not return the signed blank papers.

5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on the file decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. It was found by the learned trial Court that there was a agreement to sell between the parties. The stand taken by the defendants that it was only loan transaction, was rejected. It was found that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

6. Defendants filed the first appeal. The learned first Appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence available on the file dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell is not with respect to the property agreed to be sold. He has referred to the Court various khasra numbers. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that agreement to sell was not a concluded contract and therefore, decree for specific performance could not be passed. He has further submitted that the agreement was not specifically enforceable.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the records of the case.

9. It is not in dispute that the agreement to sell is with respect to a three storey shop owned by the defendants. Apart from the land, underneath the shop, the property identified by giving details of the property on all four sides. Details of the property on all four sides was given details of the property. All four sides was given so as to identify the property. Once the property is situated within a city in a developed area, the relevance of khasra numbers would not be material. The parties were clear in their mind while entering into agreement to sell that the three storey shop owned by the defendants is agreed to be sold.

10. The boundaries as given in the agreement are as under:

East - Street No.12;

West - Shop of Kamlesh Kumar Sham Lal;

North - Shop of Bala Ji General Store;

South - Circular road situate at the 1st corner of street No.12 on Circular Road, Abohar.

11






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