Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1861
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Fateh Deep Singh, J.
Nagina Judge - Appellants
Vs.
Purshotam Singla and Ors. - Respondent
RSA No. 4851 of 2013
Decided On : 12-03-2020
For the Appellant :M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, H.S. Grewal, Raina Sabharwal Thakur and Ritesh Aggarwal
For the Respondents:Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate and Inderjit Singh
Continuous readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform the contract is essential for granting the relief of specific performance. The financial capacity of the plaintiff and their conduct prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit are crucial factors in determining readiness and willingness.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Sale Agreement - 03.02.2004 - [Punjab Courts Act, 1918, Section 41; Specific Relief Act, Section 10] - The court upheld the findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, decreeing the suit for specific performance of the sale agreement. The court emphasized the importance of the pleadings as the foundation of the case and the conduct of the parties during the trial. It highlighted the requirement of continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the financial capacity of the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiffs had proved their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, while the defendants' conduct undermined their case, disentitling them to equitable relief. The court dismissed the appeals, stating that the judgments of the lower courts were well reasoned and sustainable based on the evidence.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of a sale agreement dated 03.02.2004 for the land measuring 24 Bighas 4 Biswas. The defendants denied the existence of the contract and alleged breach of terms by the plaintiffs. The trial court decreed the suit, which was upheld by the first appellate court, leading to the present appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the findings of the lower courts, decreeing the suit for specific performance of the sale agreement. It emphasized the importance of the pleadings and the conduct of the parties during the trial. The court found that the plaintiffs had proved their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, while the defendants' conduct undermined their case, disentitling them to equitable relief.
Issues: The issues included the existence of the sale agreement, the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform the contract, the defendants' failure to fulfill the terms and conditions of the agreement, and the maintainability of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The continuous readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform the contract is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance. The financial capacity of the plaintiff and their conduct prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit are essential factors. The conduct of the defendants, including entering into another agreement after receiving substantial money from the plaintiffs, undermined their case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, stating that the judgments of the lower courts were well reasoned and sustainable based on the evidence.
JUDGMENT :
Fateh Deep Singh, J.
1. The above detailed two regular second appeals between the same sets of parties, having arisen in the same very civil suit between them bearing No. RT. 294 of 14.10.2006/03.04.2008/16.12.2011 and having been disposed off through a common judgment and decree dated 07.03.2011, on account of common question of law and facts involved, are being taken up and disposed off together by way of this common judgment.
2. Plaintiffs Parshotam Singla, Sanjeev Garg, Om Parkash Bansal and Kamal Mahajan (now respondents) filed against defendants Ajit Singh Judge, Nagina Judge and Shah-e-Naaz Judge, father and two daughters respectively (latter two being appellants before this Court, the father being holder of general power of attorney on behalf of the daughters), a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.02.2004 in respect of the land measuring 24 Bighas 4 Biswas duly detailed and described in the head note of the plaint with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents, servants and attorneys etc. from selling, alienating, mortgaging, encumbering or transferring the land in question in any manner whatsoever.
3. The Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), S.A.S. Nagar Mohali through judgment and decree dated 07.03.2011 decreed the suit and which findings were upheld in the impugned judgment of the Court of learned Additional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar Mohali who vide judgment and decree dated 29.08.2013 dismissed the appeal of the appellant/defendants. That is how these two appeals have come about and are thus being taken up together.
4. The brief facts that are essential to be highlighted before venturing into the relative merits of the case of the two sides, are that undisputedly Ajit Singh Judge son of Sunder Singh Judge happens to be the owner in possession along with his two daughters Nagina Judge and Shah-e-Naaz Judge of the land duly detailed and described in the head note of the plaint.
5. The father also is the duly constituted attorney of the daughters. The plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a sale agreement dated 03.02.2004 regarding sale of this land measuring 24 Bighas 4 Biswas. The agreed rate was Rs. 34,76,000/- per acre (one acre approximately equal to 4 Bighas). Out of the total sale consideration, Rs. 30.00 lacs were paid in advance and as per the terms and conditions reduced into writing on the same very day Rs. 10.00 lacs were to be paid on or before 31.03.2004 and the balance Rs. 10.00 lacs on or before 31.05.2004 before the Sub-Registrar, Dera Bassi.
6. The plaintiffs alleged that they were ready and willing to undergo their part of the contract, ready with the balance sale consideration amount but the defendants had backed out of the same. It is claimed that on 31.03.2004 the plaintiffs tried to contact defendant No. 1 but to no avail and on the same day they went to the office of Sub-Registrar, Dera Bassi along with ` 10.00 lacs and waited for the defendants between 9:00 a.m. till 5:00 p.m. but the defendants failed to turn up and they got their presence marked and attested by the Executive Magistrate, Dera Bassi.
7. It is further alleged that even after 31.03.2004 the plaintiffs tried to contact defendant Ajit Singh and in the process had prepared demand drafts (detailed in the plaint) in all numbering six for a sum of Rs. 9.35 lacs in the name of the defendants and Rs. 10.65 lacs was with them in cash to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed including the money for paying expenses for the purchase of stamp papers and registration fee etc. but the defendants tried to be evasive.
8. Alleging that the very intention of the defendants from the inception of this agreement was deceptive and after receiving the amount their intention has become mala fide.
9. The plaintiffs feeling desperate and desolate contacted the defendants on 30.08.2004 to enable them to buy stamp papers as
