Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J.
Bhabhuti Singh Tyagi - Appellant
Versus
Satya Prakash - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 1794 of 2014
Decided On : 25-07-2019
Inder Pal Singh Parmar, Adv., Mukesh Rao, Adv.
A litigant approaching the court is bound to produce all relevant documents, and withholding vital documents can be considered playing fraud on the court and the opposite party.
Headnote:
Sale Deed - Property Dispute - - [Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - Section 4, Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 17, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 101] - The court discussed the validity of a Sale Deed for a property and the alleged verbal and written agreements related to the sale consideration. The court highlighted the importance of producing all relevant documents and the consequences of withholding vital information in a legal dispute. The court found the appellant's claim unconvincing and upheld the lower courts' decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant claimed ownership without possession of a house and sought cancellation of a Sale Deed, alleging it to be illegal and not binding. The respondent contended that the house was sold to him for a different sale consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant's claim unconvincing and upheld the lower courts' decisions, emphasizing the importance of producing all relevant documents and the consequences of withholding vital information in a legal dispute.
Issues: Validity of Sale Deed, Alleged verbal and written agreements, Possession of the house, Dishonoured Pay Order
Ratio Decidendi: A litigant approaching the court is bound to produce all relevant documents, and withholding vital documents can be considered playing fraud on the court and the opposite party.
Final Decision: The appellant's Suit and Appeal were dismissed, and the court upheld the lower courts' decisions.
JUDGMENT :
Sudip Ahluwalia, J.
1. This Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Faridabad in Civil Appeal No.69 of 2012 dated 13.01.2014, vide which, the original Judgment & Decree passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Faridabad in Civil Suit No.RBT 179 of 2007 dated 20.04.2012 in favour of the present Respondent/Defendant were upheld.
2. This Court has considered the entire available material on record and heard the submissions of Ld. counsel for both sides.
3. The case of the Appellant in his original Plaint was that he is the owner without possession of House No.2610, Sector 16, Urban Estate, Faridabad, and that the Sale Deed bearing No.21723 dated 19.3.2007 allegedly executed by him in respect of the aforesaid property, is illegal, unlawful, null & void, ab initio and not binding upon his Rights, Title and Interest, on account of which, the said Sale Deed is liable to be cancelled. His aforesaid claim was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court and thereafter the Ld. Lower Appellate Court had also found no merit in the same. It may be mentioned that the Appellant had claimed that he entered into a verbal Agreement with the Respondent for selling the aforesaid House for a total sale consideration of Rs.32 Lacs through Shri Jitender Singh Nagar, Advocate on 19.3.2007, and he also entered into Written Agreement to that effect on the same date. The Respondent is alleged to have paid the sale consideration price by way of two Cash Orders Nos.037289 dated 16.3.2007 and 037299 dated 19.3.2007 for Rs.5 Lacs and Rs.27 Lacs respectively, which were drawn on the Faridabad Central Cooperative Bank Limited, D.C. Office, Sector 12 Branch. His further claim was that the house in question was in possession of his own son Dinesh Tyagi, who was residing there with his family members and the Defendant/Respondent had to secure possession of the same by his own efforts, and that the impugned Sale Deed would be valid subject to encashment of both the Pay Orders, and if any of those orders was dishonoured, the same would be automatically cancelled.
4. The aforesaid contentions were denied on behalf of the Respondent, whose case has been that the House in question was actually sold vide the said Sale Deed dated 19.3.2007 itself for a total sale consideration of Rs.11,27,000/-. According to the Respondent, the original Agreement was verbally entered into by the parties on 7.12.2006, on which date, an amount of Rs.6 Lacs was paid to the Appellant, while the balance was delivered by way of Cash Order No.037298 dated 16.3.2007 for an amount of Rs. 5 Lacs, apart from the balance of Rs.27,000/- through Pay Order No.037299, after which, the Appellant correctly executed the registered Sale Deed.
5. Perusal of the Sale Deed in question (Ex.P-3) goes to show that the same was actually executed by the Appellant in favour of the Respondent for an amount of Rs.11,27,000/- only and it was also acknowledged therein that the aforesaid consideration price had been realized by the Vendor by way of Cash Pay Order No.037298 dated 16.3.2007 for an amount of Rs. 5 Lacs, and also the balance of Rs.27,000/- through Pay Order No.037299 dated 19.3.2007, apart from an amount of Rs.6 Lacs, which had already been received earlier by the vendor. The aforesaid Sale Deed therefore, itself falsifies the allegation of the Appellant to the effect that an amount of Rs. 27 Lacs was to be paid by way of Pay Order No.037299 dated 19.3.2007, which was allegedly dishonoured, since the total sale price itself mentioned in the Sale Deed was limited to Rs.11,27,000/- only.
6. The Appellant sought to explain this contradiction by arguing before the Ld. Lower Appellate Court that the actual consideration price was not meant to be shown in the Sale Deed. This argument was rightly rejected since the Ld. Appellate Court was of the opinion that the only tangible reason behind such concealment could have been to avoid payment of Tax on the actu
