Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1639
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SHEKHER DHAWAN, J.
Baldev Singh - Appellant
Versus
Gurdial Singh and others - Respondents
RSA No.461 of 1995 [O&M]
Decided On : 03-05-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the genuineness of the agreement of sale and the plaintiff's right to specific performance based on the evidence presented.
Headnote:
specific performance - agreement of sale - - [Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16(c)] - The court discussed the genuineness of the agreement of sale dated 5.4.1988 and agreement of sale dated 2.4.1988. The plaintiff was able to establish the validity of the agreement of sale in his favor through oral and documentary evidence. The court found that the agreement in favor of the defendants was suspicious and ante-dated, and was executed to defeat the plaintiff's rights. The court emphasized the importance of proving the genuineness of the agreement and upheld the plaintiff's right to specific performance based on the evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale for agricultural land. The defendants contested the suit, claiming to have purchased the land from the original seller. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the agreement of sale in favor of the plaintiff was genuine and valid, while the agreement in favor of the defendants was suspicious and ante-dated. The court upheld the plaintiff's right to specific performance based on the evidence presented.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the genuineness of the agreements of sale and the plaintiff's right to specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving the genuineness of the agreement and upheld the plaintiff's right to specific performance based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment of the first appellate court and restoring the judgment in favor of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement.
SHEKHER DHAWAN, J.
Present Regular Second Appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1994, whereby learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, reversed the findings recorded by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Guhla, on various issues and set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.08.1994 passed by the Court of first instance whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement by ordering cancellation of sale deed, was decreed.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first Instance.
3. Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of this appeal; that the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 05.04.1988 (Ex.P/1) in respect of agricultural land situated within the revenue estate of village Rasoolpur, Tehsil Guhla. As per plaintiff, defendant No.5-Hidayat purchased the suit land from State of Haryana and mutation was sanctioned in his favour. On 05.04.1988, defendant No.5-Hidayat entered into agreement of sale of the suit land with the plaintiff for a consideration amount of Rs.28,500/-. A sum of Rs.19,800/- was received by defendant No.5-Hidayat as earnest money and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed before the Sub Registrar. Defendant No.5-Hidayat agreed to get the mutation sanctioned/passed in favour of the plaintiff after clearing all encumbrances in respect of the suit land and also agreed to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement of sale Ex.P/1. As per plaintiff, he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, immediately after the agreement, defendant No.5-Hidayat started negotiating with some other persons in respect of the suit land. The plaintiff filed separate civil suit for permanent injunction titled 'Baldev Singh vs. Hidayat and others' in the month of July, 1990 in the Court of Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Kaithal, for restraining defendant No.5-Hidayat not to alienate the suit land to any other person except the plaintiff. The intending purchasers were arrayed as defendants No.1 to 4 in the said suit.
4. The plaintiff also took the plea that in case plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale, though a fact denied and disputed, then he would be entitled to recover the money paid by him to defendant No.5-Hidayat alongwith damages. Despite repeated requests and demands, the defendants did not come forward to get the sale deed executed and, as such, suit before the Court of first Instance.
5. Defendants No.1 to 4 contested the suit, inter-alia, taking the plea that they had purchased the suit land from Hidayat for a total sum of Rs.50,000/- vide sale deed dated 01.12.1988. The said sale was effected pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 02.04.1988 (Ex.D/1). As per defendants No.1 to 4, they were not aware of any agreement till they were served in the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff. As per defendants No.1 to 4, the agreement executed in their favour on 02.04.1988 was in the knowledge of the plaintiff that defendant No.5-Hidayat was not competent to execute any agreement in his favour on 05.04.1988. Even the alleged receipt (Ex.P/2) executed in favour of the plaintiff by defendant No.5-Hidayat is bogus and is result of collusion. Defendants No.1 to 4 claimed themselves to be in possession of the suit land.
6. Defendant No.5 did not appear to contest the suit despite service and he was proceeded against exparte.
7. The Court of first Instance settled the following issues and the parties were put to trial:-
1. Whether defendant No.5 agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.28,500/- vide agreement dated 05.04.1988? If so, to what effect? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff has always been and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP.
3. Whethe
