Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1454
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KULDIP SINGH, J.
Nirmal Singh and another - Appellants
Versus
Vijay Kumar Bansal - Respondent
RSA No.4895 of 2013 (O&M)
Decided On : 11-05-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Kundra and Mr. Nikhil Sabharwal, Adv.
For the Respondent:Mr. V.K. Jindal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Janya Sirohi and Mr. Akshay Bansal, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the readiness and willingness of the parties to perform their contractual obligations, as well as the applicability of the legal provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in granting specific performance and possession of the suit land.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Agreement for Sale of Land - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 22(2), Section 28(3) - The court affirmed the decree for specific performance of the agreement for the sale of land and granted possession of the suit land to the plaintiff-respondent. The court also discussed the legal provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and their applicability to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-respondent entered into an agreement with the defendants-appellants for the sale of land. The plaintiff-respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the defendants-appellants failed to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff-respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and the defendants-appellants failed to prove their readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed. The court affirmed the decree for specific performance and granted possession of the suit land to the plaintiff-respondent.
Issues: The issues included whether the defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff-respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and the defendants-appellants failed to prove their readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed. The court also discussed the applicability of the legal provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and granted possession of the suit land to the plaintiff-respondent.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the decree for specific performance and granted possession of the suit land to the plaintiff-respondent. The defendants-appellants' appeal was dismissed.
KULDIP SINGH J.
Having lost before the two Courts below, the unsuccessful defendants-appellants, have preferred the present regular second appeal against the judgment dated 03.07.2013 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Ambala, affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2012 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Naraingarh, vide which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed with the costs for specific performance of the agreement dated 30.12.2003 regarding land measuring 19 kanals, 2 marlas, as detailed in the decree, situated in village Ratour, H.B. No.252, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, after payment of balance sale consideration within a period of two months. The defendants-appellants were directed to execute the agreement to sell, failing which the plaintiff- respondent will be entitled to get it executed through Court of law.
2. The facts of the case, according to the plaintiff-respondent, are that defendants-appellants, namely, Nirmal Singh and Jaswinder Singh being the owners of the land measuring 19 kanals, 2 marlas agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff-respondent, vide agreement dated 30.12.2003 @ Rs. 2,33,000/- per acre, total amounting to Rs. 5,56,287.50/-. Rs. 1,00,000/- were paid as earnest money and the balance sale consideration was to be paid on or before 30.06.2004. It was stated that the plaintiff-respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract on the date fixed but the defendants-appellants did not turn up to execute the sale deed.
3. In the written statement, the defendants-appellants took the stand that they had approached the office of Sub Registrar on 30.06.2004 and remained there from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. but the plaintiff-respondent did not turn up to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff-respondent had been putting of the matter on one or the other pretext. The defendants-appellants also served legal notice through Advocate on 23.08.2004, which was received by opposite side but in spite of that plaintiff-respondent did not appear in the Registrar Office on 10.09.2004.
From the pleadings, following issues were framed:
“1. Whether defendants have entered into an agreement to sell dated 30.12.2003 with the plaintiff? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of agreement if so its effect? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Specific performance of the agreement as prayed for? OPP.
4. Whether the defendants performed their part of agreement and plaintiff failed to get the sale deed executed? OPP.
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.
6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.
7. Whether the plaintiff is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD.
8. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD.
9. Relief.”
4. The trial Court took up issue Nos.1 to 4 together and held that the plaintiff-respondent had come present on 30.06.2004. However, defendants-appellants failed to prove any document to show that they were present on the said date in the office of Sub Registrar. Therefore, these issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The remaining issues were also decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. In appeal, learned Addl. District Judge, Ambala affirmed the said findings.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6. It comes out from the pleadings that the agreement of sale between the parties is not denied.
7. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants has vehemently argued that in this case, the plaintiff-respondent was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It has been stated that the plaintiff- respondent did not have ready money available with him on the date fixed. Therefore, he did not turn up.
8. It is further stated that when the plaintiff-respondent did not turn up on 30.06.
