Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 938
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Aneet Goel And Another - Appellant
Versus
Harjit Singh And Others - Respondent
RSA-3102-2015 (O&M), RSA-3394-2015
Decided On : 22-01-2020
Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the appellants (In RSA-3102-2015); Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant (In RSA-3394-2015); Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for respondent No.5
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of privity of contract and readiness and willingness in specific performance cases, and the court's authority to modify decrees to ensure substantive justice between the parties.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Property Dispute - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - [Specific Performance] - [Property Dispute] - [Section 19, Specific Relief Act, 1963] - The court discussed the agreements to sell, readiness and willingness of the parties, privity of contract, and the validity of 'No Objection Certificate' granted by the Greater Mohali Development Authority. The court emphasized the importance of privity of contract and readiness and willingness in specific performance cases and modified the decree to assess the cost of construction and make the plaintiffs liable to pay the same to the defendant.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming declaration, possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell and for grant of decree of permanent injunction. The dispute was with regard to a plot in Mohali, and the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants did not honor the agreement to sell and perform their part of the contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, finding that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, and the defendants failed to honor the agreement to sell.
Issues: Privity of contract, readiness and willingness of the parties, validity of 'No Objection Certificate', and the claim of the defendant as a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of privity of contract and readiness and willingness in specific performance cases. It also considered the validity of the 'No Objection Certificate' and the claim of the defendant as a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice.
Final Decision: Both the appeals were dismissed, but the decree passed by the Courts below was modified to assess the cost of construction and make the plaintiffs liable to pay the same to the defendant. The defendant was also directed to join defendant Nos.2 and 3 in executing the sale deed in favor of the plaintiffs.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. - By this judgment, RSA-3102-2015 filed by defendant Nos.2-3 and RSA-3394-2015 filed by defendant No.l in Civil SuitNo.571/03.12.2005 shall stand decided. Both these appeals are arising from a common judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court.
2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit claiming declaration, possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell and for grant of decree of permanent injunction.
3. Some facts are required to be noticed in brief.
4. Dispute is with regard to plot No.2649, Phase-11, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Paramjit Singh-appellant No.2 in RSA No.3102 of 2015 was the owner thereof. He had appointed Aneet Goel-appellant No.l in RSA No.3102 of 2015, as his power of attorney. Paramjit Singh through Aneet Goel entered into an oral agreement to sell in favour of Ashok Kumar-defendant No.4, correctness whereof is not disputed. Ashok Kumar on the basis of the aforesaid oral agreement entered into further agreement to sell by specifically describing himself as an Agreement Holder in favour of Harjit Singh dated 20.09.2004 for a total agreed sale consideration of Rs. 27,85,000/-out of which Rs. 3,00,000/- was received as earnest money. The target date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 03.11.2004. Thereafter, Harjit Singh-plaintiff No.l in turn, further entered into an agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Kanwaljit Singh and his wife Hardeep Kaur for a sum of Rs. 31,50,000/- on receipt of Rs. 4,60,000/- as earnest money. In the aforesaid agreement, the target date was fixed as 31.10.2004. It may be significant to note that the execution of the aforesaid agreements and receipt of earnest money is not in dispute.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement to sell, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3after getting signatures of defendant-Paramjit Singh through his attorney Aneet Goel applied for and granted 'No Objection Certificate' by Greater Mohali Development Authority, on 14.10.2004. Thus, the consent of Paramjit Singh to sell the property in favour of Kanwaljit Singh and Hardeep Kaur is also not in dispute. The aforesaid 'No Objection Certificate' was valid for a period of 180 days. It is the case of the plaintiffs that 31.10.2004 and 01.11.2004 were holidays and, therefore, they alongwith the balance sale consideration visited the office of Sub-Registrar, and moved an application Ex.P4 before the Sub-Registrar for marking their presence and got attested affidavit dated 02.11.2004 from the Executive Magistrate/Sub-Registrar in order to prove their presence. However, the defendants did not come forward to honour the agreement to sell and perform their part of the contract.
6. At this stage, it may be noticed that the owner-Paramjit Singh through Aneet Goel sold the suit property vide sale deed dated 07.10.2005 in favour of defendant No.l-Smt. Kailash Singla, (appellant in RSA No.3394 of 2015) for a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/-. It may be noted here that although Smt. Kailash Singla had claimed that owner had entered into an agreement to sell with her on 20.05.2005 and received Rs. 15,00,000/- as earnest money, however, the aforesaid agreement has not been produced. The sale deed dated 07.10.2005 was also executed after obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from allotting authority i.e. GMADA.
7. The plaintiffs i.e. Harjit Singh, Kanwaljit Singh and Hardeep Kaur filed the present suit praying for the relief referred to above. Smt. Kailash Singla was impleaded as defendant No.l, Paramjit Singh defendant No.2, Aneet Goel defendant No.3 whereas Ashok Kumar as defendant No.4.The execution of the various agreements to sell in favour of the plaintiffs is not disputed by defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4. The receipt of earnest money by Ashok Kumar and Harjit Singh is also not in dispute. However, defendant No.l claims that she is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice and, therefore, she is prot
