Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1663
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Bant Singh (through LRs) and others - Appellants
Versus
Darshan Singh (through LRs) and others - Respondents
RSA Nos. 1520, 1809 of 1995 (O & M)
Decided On : 16-05-2018
For the Appellants :Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Singh Maho, Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitin Sarin, Advocate.
Critical appraisal of evidence and misreading of evidence are crucial in determining the existence of an agreement and payment of earnest money.
Headnote:
agreement to sell - specific performance - 364, 365/34 IPC - 51 bighas and 19 biswas - 113 bighas and 18 biswas - Will - thumb impressions - misreading of evidence - critical appraisal - misreading of judgment - testamentary document
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs sought specific performance of an agreement to sell for a land. Defendants denied the existence of the agreement, alleging it was forged. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The First Appellate Court's judgment was based on misreading of evidence and misinterpretation of the agreement. The plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of the agreement and payment of earnest money.
Issues: Existence of the agreement, misreading of evidence, payment of earnest money, critical appraisal of evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the First Appellate Court misread evidence and failed to critically appraise the agreement, leading to an erroneous judgment.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were set aside, and that of the trial court was restored.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. By this judgment RSA Nos.1520 and 1809 of 1995 shall stand decided. Both the appeals are arising out of same suit and the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court is also common.
2. Defendants-appellants have filed two separate appeals against the decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 24.09.1982 with respect to land measuring 51 bighas and 19 biswas. Late Sh. Bhuja Ram @ Bhuja Singh, who was not having any children and his wife had also pre-deceased him, was the owner of the property in dispute. It is the case of the plaintiff that he executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs on 24.09.1982 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,80,000/- and received Rs.1,30,000/- as earnest money. It is further pleaded that the sale deed was to be executed on 10.06.1983 on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-. There are five defendants in the suit. Defendants No.1 (Bant Singh) and 2 (Ram Singh) are sons of Niranjan Singh brother of late Sh. Bhuja Ram @ Bhuja Singh, whereas defendants No.3 to 5 (Sadhu Singh, Rulda Singh and Kirpal Singh) are sons of defendant No.1 (Bant Singh son of Niranjan Singh). Bhuja Ram @ Bhuja Singh died on 01.10.1982. Initially defendants No.1 and 2 filed separate written statements denying execution of the agreement to sell and receipt of earnest money by Bhuja Ram. Counter allegations were made by defendants No.1 and 2 inter se asserting that Bhuja Ram @ Bhuja Singh was kidnapped and while in captivity his thumb impressions were taken on blank papers on which agreement to sell has been printed. However, later on defendants No.1 and 2 appears to have resolved the inter se dispute and a statement to that effect was recorded by the learned trial Court on 08.02.1991. Sum and substance of the written statement filed by defendants No.1 and 2 is that the agreement to sell is forged and fabricated document.
3. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on the file recorded a finding that the agreement to sell is drafted on an already existing thumb marked papers and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was ordered to be dismissed. Plaintiffs filed the first appeal. Learned First Appellate Court has chosen to reverse the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
4. In the considered opinion of this Court, following substantial questions of law arise in the present case :-
(i) whether the learned First Appellate Court before reversing the judgment of the learned trial Court, is required to discuss, analyse the reasons and after critical appraisal thereof, give its findings?
(ii) Whether the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court is result of misreading of evidence?
5. Before discussing question of law, certain more facts would be necessary to be noticed, Bhuja Ram was owner of land measuring 51 bighas and 19 biswas being half share of total land 113 bighas and 18 biswas situated at village Rauni, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. He was not having Class I heir. Defendants No.1 and 2 are sons of brother (Niranjan Singh) of Bhuja Ram. On 05.04.1982, Bhuja Ram executed a registered Will in favour of defendants No.3 to 5, sons of defendant No.1 (Bant Singh). It is the allegation of defendant No.1 that Hardit Singh alongwith Jarnail Singh, two brothers-in-law of defendant No.2, accompanied with Teja Singh (father-in-law of defendant No.2) of village Bija along with others, who were fully armed came in a truck to village Natt at about 10.00 a.m. and forcibly took away Bhuja Ram alias Bhuja Singh, who was aged about 76 years at that time at the behest of Ram Singh – defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 lodged a complaint dated 17.9.1982 to the SSP, Ludhiana with a copy to SHO, Sadar, Ludhiana, copy of which is Ex.DW-4. The complaint was lodged in the Court of Shri S.S. Sandhu under Sections 364, 365/34 IPC.
6. On 17.9.1982, when Bhuja Ram alias Bhuja Singh alias Rabbi
