Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J.
Ved Parkash – Appellant
Versus
Mahender – Respondent
RSA No. 1747 of 2017(O&M)
Decided On : 16-11-2017
(B) Limitation Act, 1963, Article 54 – Agreement to Sell – Specific Performance – Period of limitation – No date fixed for performance – Period of limitation prescribed under Article 54 of the Act, is three years from the date fixed for performance – If there is no such date fixed, only then the plaintiff is required to file a suit within three years from the notice of refusal of performance of the part of the defendant, even before that, is irrelevant – The plaintiff is entitled to file a suit within three years from the date agreed for performance; as specified in the terms of the agreement – 2010(6) Law Herald (SC) 4257 relied upon – Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.20. (Para 12)
(C) Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.20 – Agreement to Sell – Specific Performance – Limitation – Delay in filing suit – Determination of title – The title of the defendant has been determined only qua 600 sq. yards and not qua 1200 sq. yards, as was agreed by the defendant to sell to the plaintiff – This title was determined only on 15.09.2003 – Therefore, by any means, the suit for specific performance could not have been filed by the plaintiff for 600 sq. yards only, before the determination of the title of the defendant; because then his suit would have been dismissed even on that ground that there is no title of the defendant qua the suit property – This also justifies the action of the plaintiff in waiting till the title of the defendant was determined. (Para 13)
(D) Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.20 – Agreement to Sell – Specific Performance – Period of limitation is an "issue of fact" – Defendant was required to prove limitation by leading cogent evidence to satisfy that suit was time barred – However, neither defendant led any evidence to show limitation nor he pressed for limitation at time of argument – Issue, being a mixed question of fact and law, cannot be racked up at stage of second appeal before High Court. (Para 14)
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J.
1. This is the second appeal filed by the defendant No. 1 in the suit challenging the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby, the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff has been decreed.
2. For the reference, the parties in the present appeal would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants; as they were described in the original suit.
3. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the suit are that the plaintiff filed a suit claiming that defendant-Sh. Singhram, now represented through legal representatives, entered into an agreement to sell dated 17.11.1990 to the effect that he was the owner in possession of land measuring 1200 sq. yards comprised in Khasra No. 758 situated within the revenue estate of Village Nathupur Tehsil and District Gurgaon. It was further claimed by him that land is free from all sorts of encumbrances. Believing the representation made by the vendor/defendant, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the said property. The price of the land was settled at rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. yard and a total consideration for the sale was Rs. 1,80,000/-. Out of that Rs. 1,25,000/-was paid by the plaintiff to the vendor/defendant. Possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the target date for execution of the sale deed was agreed to be, a period of one month from the date of decision, of a civil suit which was pending regarding the title of the vendor/defendant over the land agreed to be sold. The date of decision of the suit was to be communicated by the defendants to the plaintiff. The suit was decided on 22.01.2003, however, the defendant did not communicate the date and did not show his readiness to execute the sale deed, therefore, the present suit was filed. It was further pleaded in the suit that the defendant, in the meantime, filed a suit for possession for seeking back possession of the suit property. However, the same was also dismissed. It was further claimed that although the title suit, filed by some other Co-sharers against the defendant, was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 22.01.2003, however, in appeal learned District and Sessions Judge decreed that suit on 15.09.2003 and held the defendant to be the owner of the land measuring 600 sq.yards only. It was further claimed that as per the decision of the Civil Court, the defendants had got clear title of 1/4th share (600 Sq. yards) in khasra No. 758 which was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff, therefore, the suit was filed only for execution of the sale deed qua 600 sq. yards instead of agreed 1200 Sq. yards. Since, the amount had already been paid in excess, therefore, the plaintiff claimed specific performance of the agreement.
4. On notice, defendant contested the suit. Since in the meantime, the vendor/defendant had expired, so he was represented by the legal representatives. Besides taking routine preliminary objections, the defendants claimed that vendor had share of 600 sq. yards only, being 1/4th share in 2400 sq. yards; comprised in the khasra number as mentioned above. Therefore, the agreement cannot be interpreted as for 1200 sq. yards. Still further, it was alleged that agreement in question was forged and fabricated. The original defendant had expired, thereafter, the legal representatives of the defendant took the plea that the signatures of the defendant were obtained on a blank papers after intoxicating him. In the alternative, it was pleaded that the alleged agreement was executed only by way of collateral security and it was not intended to be an agreement to sell. Still further it was claimed that the suit was time barred. It was claimed that the denial on the part of vendor-Singh Ram was manifestly clear to the plaintiff, when the defendant had filed a suit for permanent injunction on 31.01.1995, challenging the present agreement in question; and denied the execution of the agreement. Therefore, it was pleaded that the pl
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
