Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
Labh Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Pal Singh and Others - Respondents
CR No.4370 of 2017(O&M)
Decided On : 27-11-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate and Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate
The capacity of legal heirs to take a stand in a suit for specific performance depends on whether they are impleaded under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC or Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Headnote:
specific performance - Civil Suit - 2017(5) RCR (Civil) 290 - The court discussed the relevance of family settlement and the status of the property in a suit for specific performance. It highlighted the distinction between impleading legal representatives under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, and how it impacts their capacity to take a stand in the case.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell land. Defendant contested the suit, claiming that the agreement was forged and the property was ancestral and coparcenary.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the order dismissing the application for framing additional issues. It held that the additional issues raised by the defendant were relevant for the determination of the controversy.
Issues: Controversy over the validity of the agreement, ancestral nature of the property, and the capacity of legal heirs to take a stand in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The distinction between impleading legal representatives under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC impacts their capacity to take a stand in the case.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to frame the additional issues raised by the defendant and proceed to decide the suit on merits.
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
1. Petitioner/defendant No.3 has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 24.04.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.A.S. Nagar Mohali, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for framing of additional issues was dismissed.
2. Few facts of the case are relevant to be noticed. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 04.04.2014 executed by Matu Singh in favour of the plaintiff in respect of land measuring 19 kanals 12 marlas as detailed in the plaint. The suit was filed with the averments that Matu Singh had disclosed to the plaintiff that he had taken loan from some persons of the village for which one Gurdeep Singh had obtained his signatures on some blank stamp papers and has forged agreement to sell. A suit for specific performance was filed on the basis of said agreement in the Civil Court against Matu Singh. Matu Singh told that he wanted to effect a compromise with the said persons and he proposed to sell his property in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff being close relative of deceased Matu Singh had agreed to his proposal. Plaintiff had given an amount of Rs.19.50 lacs vide demand draft No.367294 in the Court on behalf of Matu Singh and the said suit was compromised.
3. Matu Singh had further disclosed to the plaintiff that he had also taken a loan from some other persons and had mortgaged part of his property and in order to redeem the said property, Matu Singh again approached the plaintiff and asked that he intended to get his loan cleared. Matu Singh approached the plaintiff and agreed to sell his land in favour of the plaintiff for which the plaintiff agreed and entered into an agreement to sell dated 04.04.2014 for the land measuring 19 kanals 12 marlas as detailed in the plaint @ Rs.31,25,000/- per acre. Plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.26 lacs on 04.04.2014 i.e. Rs.19.50 lacs paid through demand draft and Rs.6.50 lacs in cash to Matu Singh. According to agreement to sell dated 04.04.2014, the plaintiff had to pay Rs.38 lacs to Matu Singh on or before 30.11.2014 and the sale deed was to be executed upto 08.06.2015. Matu Singh again received an amount of Rs.20 lacs on 12.11.2014 in the presence of the witnesses and an endorsement to that effect was made at the back of the agreement in the form of receipt. Another amount of Rs.18 lacs was paid to Matu Singh on 26.11.2014 in the presence of the witnesses and in token of its receipt, Matu Singh made an endorsement at the back of the agreement. In this way, Matu Singh (since deceased) had received an amount of Rs.64 lacs from the plaintiff as earnest money. Since Matu Singh died on 09.01.2015, the defendants being legal heirs of deceased Matu Singh had inherited the estate of deceased Matu Singh, therefore, the suit was filed against the defendants being legal heirs of Matu Singh.
4. As per memorandum of the parties, Pal Singh/respondent No.1 is the plaintiff. Avtar Singh, Harchand Singh and Labh Singh are the sons of deceased Matu Singh. Mukhtiar Kaur is widow of Matu Singh, whereas Balwinder Kaur and Manjit Kaur are daughters of Matu Singh. Only defendant No.3 has come forward to file the present revision petition.
5. The suit was contested by defendant No.3/petitioner by filing his written statement. In the written statement, defendant No.3/petitioner took the stand that Matu Singh never taken any loan from any person as alleged by the plaintiff. Late Matu Singh never entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff on 04.04.2014 as alleged by the plaintiff. Plaintiff never paid any amount to Matu Singh as alleged. The rate of land was never settled @ Rs.31,25,000/- per acre. The agreement was claimed to be forged and fabricated as no consideration was passed on the basis of alleged agreement to sell. Defendant No.3/petitioner also claimed that market value of the land was Rs.60 lacs per acre in the year 2014. An oral family set
