Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.
Sukhjit Singh - Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Kumar - Respondent
RSA No. 420 of 2021
Decided On : 10-08-2021
Sale Agreement - Specific Performance - TP Act - [Section 52 of TP Act, Sale of Land, Specific Performance] - The court discussed the sale agreement, specific performance, and the applicability of Section 52 of the TP Act. It highlighted the principles of lis pendens and bona fide purchaser, and how the sale deeds were held to be in preference over the suit for specific performance. The court also emphasized the importance of impleading necessary parties and the validation of agreements to sell.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed against a judgment declaring a previous judgment and decree null and void, and decreeing joint possession of land. The appellant argued that there was an agreement to sell in his favor, and the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff should not have been challenged. The court analyzed the sale agreements, the transfer of title, and the knowledge of the plaintiff regarding the previous decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser of the land and that the sale deed in his favor was not hit by principles of lis pendens. It also held that the judgments cited by the appellant were not applicable to the present case.
Issues: The issues included entitlement to declaration, maintainability of the suit, limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel, cause of action, and bonafide purchaser status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of impleading necessary parties, the validation of agreements to sell, and the applicability of principles of lis pendens and bona fide purchaser.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed in limine.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Sandhawalia , J. - The defendant-appellant is in appeal against the judgment of the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Dasuya dated 18.01.2016 which has been upheld by the Lower Appellate Court at Hoshiarpur on 12.02.2021. Resultantly, the suit for declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2009 (Exs.P-3 & P-4) have been held to be null and void qua land measuring 2 Kanals 10 Marlas out of the land measuring 14 Kanals 11 Marlas, bearing Khasra Nos.198(6-6), 200(8-5). The suit for joint possession of the land in question has also been decreed.
2. Counsel for the appellant has mainly argued that there was an agreement to sell in favour of the appellant with Harjinder Singh dated 02.09.2004 (Ex.D-1) and therefore, the suit having been decreed on 02.01.2009, the sale would relate back to operate from the said date in his favour and therefore, the Courts below were not justified in setting aside the said judgment and decree. It was, accordingly, contended that there was no need for the appellant to challenge the sale deed dated 16.07.2007 in favour of the plaintiff which had been executed in his favour by one Gopal Krishan who was further purchaser by Harjinder Singh, the original landowner.
3. Counsel has, thus, relied upon judgments passed by this Court in Smt. Madhu Sharma Vs. N.K.Mair & others, (2018) 4 RCR(Civ) 881 and Gurmit Singh & others Vs. Inderjit Singh,2018 2 PunLR 685, to buttress his argument.
4. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is to be noticed that the agreement to sell was executed by Harjinder Singh in favour of the present appellant-defendant on 02.09.2004 (Ex.D1) for land measuring 25 Kanals 1 Marla out of which the disputed portion of land measuring 2 Kanals 10 Marlas figures. Prior to the litigation initiated by appellantSukhjit Singh against Harjinder Singh on 01.04.2008 the sale deed was executed by Harjinder Singh in favour of one Gopal Krishan on 16.07.2007 for land measuring 2 Kanals 10 Marlas and the revenue records were changed in his favour in the Jamabandi for the year 2002- 2003. As noticed, the suit filed by the present appellant for specific performance against Harjinder Singh was on 01.04.2008. During the pendency of the suit, Gopal Krishan had sold the land to the plaintiffrespondent on 10.12.2008 and put him in possession of the same. In the meantime, the suit filed by the appellant was decreed on 02.01.2009 and symbolic possession was delivered by execution of the degree on 02.11.2011. It was, at this point of time, the plaintiff alleged that it came to his knowledge the factum of decree dated 02.01.2009 and he initiated the present suit on 11.09.2013, which has been decreed.
5. A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the following issues were framed by the Trial Court:
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is beyond period of limitation? OPD
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit by his act and conduct? OPD
6. Whether no cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file this suit? OPD
7. Relief.
Thereafter issues were framed on 12.10.2015 as under:
1-A. Whether the alleged sale deed dated 10-12-2008 is hit by provisions of lis pendences under section 52 of the TP Act? OPD
1-B. Whether the defendant is bonafide purchaser as per the sale deed dated 10-12-2008?OPD"
6. The plaintiff and the defendant themselves examined each other and placed the material evidence on record. Admittedly, the sale deed in favour of Gopal Krishan was executed on 16.07.2007, prior to the initiation of the suit against Harjinder Singh by the present appellant, which was only filed on 01.04.2008. The title, thus, had already passed to Gopal Krishan who, thereafter, had become absolute owner and being unaware of the agreement in favour of the present
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
