Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KULDIP SINGH, J.
Tript Rajinder Singh Bajwa - Appellant
Versus
Chander Bhushan Singh and Others - Respondents
RSA-4261-1999 (O/M) with Cross Objections-4434-C-2000 (O/M)
Decided On : 19-11-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate, with, Ms. Armaan Saggar and Ms. Veenu Garg, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Senior Advocate, with, Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proof of the agreement in favor of the plaintiff and the dismissal of the suit against defendants No. 9 and 10 based on the finding that they were bonafide purchasers without notice of the sale agreement.
Headnote:
agreement - specific performance - - [Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 21(1), Limitation Act, 1963, Section 21(2)] - The court found that the plaintiff had proved the agreement in his favor and that the agreement set up by the defendants was discarded. The court also held that the suit against defendants No. 9 and 10 was within limitation under Section 21(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of land against the defendants. The lower appellate court reversed the findings and held that defendants No. 9 and 10 were bonafide purchasers without notice of the sale agreement dated 6.6.1983. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had proved the agreement in his favor and that the agreement set up by the defendants was discarded. The court also held that the suit against defendants No. 9 and 10 was within limitation under Section 21(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Issues: The issues included whether the defendants executed an agreement to sell in favor of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, whether the defendants breached the terms of the agreement, whether the defendants No. 9 and 10 were bonafide purchasers, and whether the suit was within limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiff had proved the agreement in his favor and that the agreement set up by the defendants was discarded. The court also held that the suit against defendants No. 9 and 10 was within limitation under Section 21(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Decision: The cross objections were allowed, and the appeal filed by the plaintiff was partly allowed and partly dismissed. The plaintiff was entitled to the alternative relief of recovery of earnest money from defendants No. 1 to 8 with interest.
KULDIP SINGH, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of RSA-4261-1999, filed by plaintiff (appellant herein), against the judgment dated 29.5.1999, passed by lower appellate Court and Cross Objections-4434-C-2000, filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, against some adverse finding given by lower appellate Court on issue No. 1.
2. Facts of the case are that originally plaintiff Tript Rajinder Singh Bajwa filed a civil suit against defendants No. 1 to 8 (respondents No. 3 to 10 herein), who are legal heirs of Amar Singh Bedi for specific performance of agreement dated 6.6.1983, regarding land measuring 49 kanals 3 marlas, fully detailed in head note of suit, situated in village Qadian, H.B. No. 177, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdasur, as per jamabandi for the year 1979-80.
3. The case of plaintiff/appellant is that Amar Singh son of Mela Ram son Gulab Singh, resident of Qadian, was owner of the suit land. The said Defendants No. 1 to 6 and defendants No. 7 and 8 are daughters and sons respectively of Amar Singh. Said Amar Singh died on 8.12.1970. Mutation No. 1275 was sanctioned in their favour on 13.12.1983. It is stated that defendants No. 1, 7 and 8, being general power of attorney dated 16.4.1983 of all defendants, entered into agreement of sale dated 6.6.1983 in favour of plaintiff/appellant. Through said agreement of sale, defendants agreed to sell suit land for Rs. 1,90,000/-. Rs. 5,000/- was paid as earnest money to defendant No. 1/respondent No. 3. The sale deed was to be executed and registered after expiry of 15 days from the date of sanction of mutation. Mutation No. 1275 was sanctioned on 13.12.1983. Defendants also agreed to sell tube well along with land. Defendants have committed breach of agreement by not executing the sale deed. Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract.
4. In the said suit, all defendants did not appear and after recording ex parte evidence, an ex parte decree was passed on 1.3.1985, by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Gurdaspur. The application for setting aside ex parte order dated 1.3.1985 was filed by defendants on 25.3.1985 and same was dismissed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Gurdaspur, but in appeal, ex parte judgment and decree was set aside by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, on 27.9.1989. As it was disclosed that defendants No. 1 to 8 had already sold the land to defendants No. 9 and 10, vide sale deed dated 13.10.1983, registered on 25.2.1983, therefore, amended plaint was filed whereby prayer was added that defendants No. 9 and 10 should be directed to join the execution of sale deed.
5. Defendants No. 1 to 8, in written statement, stated that they had already sold the land to Chander Bhushan Singh and Virender Deep Singh (defendants No. 9 and 10), vide sale deed dated 13.10.1983 for Rs. 1,60,000/-. The sale deed was executed on the basis of agreement dated 25.2.1983, executed by defendants in favour of said vendees and sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid as earnest money. The agreement claimed by plaintiff was denied. Receipt of earnest money from plaintiff was also denied. However, defendants admitted that mutation No. 1275 has been sanctioned regarding estate of Amar Singh.
6. Defendants No. 9 and 10, in written statement, while denying the agreement claimed by plaintiff, stated that there was no valid general power of attorney on the basis of which agreement to sell was executed. They claimed that they have purchased the land and are bonafide purchasers of land for without notice of any such agreement. There was no valid agreement in favour of plaintiff.
7. In the replication, plaintiff denied agreement of sale with defendants No. 9 and 10.
From the pleadings, following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the defendants No. 1 to 8 executed an agreement to sell dated 6.6.1983 in favour of the plaintiff ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff always remained ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement? OPP
3. Whether defendants No
