Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 401
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
VINOD KUMAR CHOPRA - Appellant
Vs.
NARAIN SINGH - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 5892 of 2018
Decided on : 10-01-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Shiv Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Agreement to Sell--Specific Performance--Mere admission of signatures on the agreement to sell does not make it a valid and legal document and it does not mean that the contents of the same are admitted
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.20--Agreement to Sell--Specific Performance--Admission of Signatures--Mere admission of signatures on the agreement to sell does not make it a valid and legal document and it does not mean that the contents of the same are admitted. (Para 12)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.20--Agreement to Sell--Specific Performance--Admission of Signatures--Burden of Proof--Seller admitted that signatures were taken on blank paper but denied the contents of the agreement to sell--In such circumstances, in a suit by buyer, it was legal duty on part of buyer to prove that the contents of agreement to sell have been proved on file. (Para 12)
(C) Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.20--Agreement to Sell--Specific Performance--Burden of Proof--Seller admitted signatures but denied contents of agreement--Buyer in his evidence has nowhere stated that the contents of agreement were read over and explained to seller and he put his signatures in taken of its correctness--So when the contents have been denied by the respondent-defendant and there is no evidence that he signed the agreement after understanding the contents of the same to be correct, then it cannot be said that the agreement to sell has been duly proved--Suit dismissed. (Para 12)
Jaishree Thakur, J.
The instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gurgaon (now Gurugram), which was affirmed in appeal by the lower Appellate Court.
2. In short, the facts of the case as alleged are that, the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant for a total consideration of Rs.14,85,000/- per acre on 18.08.2003, out of which a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid through cheque and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid in cash as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed on 30.09.2003 on receiving the balance sale consideration. The respondent was to obtain No Objection Certificate under Section 7-A of the Haryana Urban Development & Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975 in favour of the appellant prior to the execution and registration of the sale deed, but the respondent did not obtain the NOC. It is averred that the appellant has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract on payment of balance sale consideration amount, but the respondent did not care to obtain the NOC from the concerned authorities. It is submitted that the appellant appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 30.09.2003 fully prepared with remaining sale consideration along with other expenses for stamp papers, but the respondent did not turn up. Hence, the suit.
3. Earlier, an ex parte judgment and decree was passed in favour of the appellant on 26.03.2007, but the same was set aside on the application moved by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, by an order dated 30.01.2014 and thereafter, the respondent filed his written statement.
4. In his written statement, the respondent took preliminary objections as to maintainability, court fee and jurisdiction, estoppel, locus standi, barred by the limitation etc. while submitting that the market value of the land in question is more than Rs. 4 crore per acre and even the collector rate of the land of village Nagli Umarpur has been fixed as Rs. 2.25 crore per acre. On merits, the respondent admitted that he is owner in possession of land measuring 13 kanal, 6 marla as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, but categorically denied entering into the agreement to sell dated 18.08.2003 with the appellant or that the respondent duly signed or executed the agreement to sell dated 18.08.2003. It is submitted that one Satish Nagar of village Ullawas along with his associate Prem Singh, who stated themselves to be property brokers, contacted the respondent and obtained his signatures on blank stamp paper and unfilled papers on 01.08.2003, promising that they could get the land sold to some buyer for a handsome price, which would be settled before the prospective purchaser and in front of the respondent. They promised that the agreement will be got effected between seller and purchaser after mutual settlement within a weeks time. They obtained the signatures of the respondent on 01.08.2003 after handing over a cheque of Rs. 1,25,000/- without disclosing the name of the account holder. They represented that it could be got encashed by the respondent and if no agreement of the choice of the respondent would be got effected, the amount so encashed would be forfeited and the respondent will not be liable to refund the same. It is submitted that when no mutual sale agreement was effected between the respondent and the prospective buyer within a week from 01.08.2003, the cheque of Rs. 1,25,000/- already encashed on 05.08.2003 stood forfeited and the blank signed papers became ineffective and infructuous. The rate of the land fixed at Rs. 14,85,000/- per acre, agreement effected between the parties and giving Rs. 2,50,000/- as earnest money or payment on 18.08.2003 by the appellant, were also denied by the respondent. All the remaining allegations o
