Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill, J.
Vinod Kumar Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Madan Lal Chawla - Respondent
RSA No. 384 of 2013 (O&M)
Decided On : 12-12-2019
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. G.S.Nagra, Advocate for the respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of passing consideration for a valid sale deed, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in appeals involving substantial questions of law, as per Section 100 of the CPC.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Sale of Property - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54, Section 100 of the CPC - [SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE] - [SALE OF PROPERTY] - [Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54, Section 100 of the CPC] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which deals with the requirements for a valid sale of immovable property, and Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, which limits the jurisdiction of the High Court in an appeal involving substantial questions of law. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions, particularly in relation to the passing of consideration and the intent of the parties in executing the sale deed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a property or, in the alternative, for recovery of a specified amount. The defendant contested the suit, claiming that the sale deed was without consideration and that the plaintiff did not come forward to deposit the entire payment.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the agreement was unenforceable due to lack of consideration. The appellate court upheld the dismissal of the suit.
Issues: The issues included the execution of the agreement, passing of consideration, entitlement to specific performance, alternative recovery of the suit amount, maintainability of the suit, and entitlement to special costs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the document lacked a recital of the consideration amount being handed over to the defendant, and the plaintiff's conduct did not demonstrate readiness to pay the entire consideration amount. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the intent of the parties in executing the sale deed.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal with no order as to cost.
JUDGMENT
Lisa Gill, J. - Appellant-plaintiff, has filed this appeal being aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 23.11.2010, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rajpura, as well as judgment and decree dated 04.10.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff, has been dismissed.
2. Present appeal has been filed challenging both the said judgements and decrees.
3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 24.05.2005 in respect to the suit property as described in the plaint and in the alternate for recovery of Rs.6,37,200/-. It is further prayed that in case the Court reaches a conclusion that Rs.4,12,200/- was not received by the defendant at the time of execution of the sale deed dated 24.05.2005, the plaintiff was ready to pay a sum of Rs.6,37,200/-. it is pleaded that the defendant being the owner of the suit property agreed to sell the same for a total consideration of Rs.6,37,200/-. Defendant purchased the non judicial stamp papers worth Rs.38,500/-, which was paid by the plaintiff. Sale deed dated 24.05.2005, was executed in the plaintiffs favour after receiving a sum of Rs.4,12,200/- in cash and a draft dated 23.05.2005 for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-. Sale deed was claimed to be attested by Amrinder Singh, Sadhu Singh and Balwinder Singh, the defendant and Vijay Kumar Goyal on behalf of the plaintiff. The sale deed was presented before the Sub Registrar on 24.05.2005, in the presence of witnesses, but an objection was raised by the Sub-Registrar, Rajpura that the Phrase 'HUF has been mentioned in the sale deed, but the same was not mentioned in the jamabandi attached with the sale deed, where the ownership of the land was reflected. The phrase 'HUF' was to be removed from the sale deed. The defendant is claimed to have returned the draft of Rs.2,25,000/- to the plaintiffs agent namely Vijay Kumar Goyal. However, the defendant developed a mala fide intention and did not come forward for execution of the sale deed, though a sum of Rs.4,12,200/-already stood paid to him. Registered notice dated 23.08.2005 was issued to the defendant. Reply was given by the defendant but he did not come forward for execution of the sale deed. Hence, the suit was filed.
4. Suit was contested by the defendant. Various preliminary objections were raised. It is pleaded that the land in question was purchased by the defendant from 'HUF' funds, therefore, the word 'HUF' was mentioned in the sale deed. It is stated that the document dated 24.05.2005, was indeed drawn up and it was agreed that the amount of Rs..4,12,200/-would be paid in cash and draft of Rs.2,25,000/- would be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed before the Sub Registrar, Rajpura. It is mentioned in the said document that the total amount in question would be received before the Sub Registrar, Rajpura. Once, the objection regarding mention of phrase 'HUF was raised, sale deed was not registered. Therefore, the amount in question was never handed over to the defendant. No consideration had passed between the parties. Furthermore, the plaintiff, did not come forward to deposit the entire payment and it is he who developed a mala fide intention inasmuch as he did not want to pay a sum of Rs.4,12,200/-and wanted the execution and registration of the sale deed only on the payment of Rs.2,25,000/-. Dismissal of the suit was prayed.
5. Replication was not filed. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-
1. Whether defendant executed agreement to sell dated 24.05.2005 in favour of the plaintiff and received the earnest money, as claimed? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff always remained ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agr
