Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 886
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rekha Mittal, J.
Neeraj Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Nirmal Kaur Gill & Ors. - Respondents
CR No. 1855 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 20-03-2021
Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant.
The executing court cannot go beyond the decree passed by the trial court, and a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the correctness of the agreement of sale for which specific performance has been sought.
Headnote:
Fraud - Execution of Sale Deed - Specific Performance of Agreement - 14.06.2004 - 28.12.2004 - [Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 10, Section 16, Section 20] - The court dismissed the objections raised by the petitioner in the execution proceedings, emphasizing that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree passed by the trial court and that the petitioner, as a subsequent purchaser, cannot challenge the correctness of the agreement of sale for which specific performance has been sought. The court also highlighted the principle of res judicata and the potential endless litigation if such pleas were allowed in execution applications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner raised objections in execution proceedings against the possession of a property, alleging fraud in the decree obtained by the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14.06.2004 and the subsequent sale deed dated 28.12.2004. The petitioner claimed to be a subsequent purchaser of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the objections devoid of merit and dismissed them, emphasizing that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree passed by the trial court and that the petitioner, as a subsequent purchaser, cannot challenge the correctness of the agreement of sale for which specific performance has been sought.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's objections in the execution proceedings, including allegations of fraud in obtaining the decree and the petitioner's claim as a subsequent purchaser of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The executing court cannot go beyond the decree passed by the trial court, and a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the correctness of the agreement of sale for which specific performance has been sought.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's objections in the execution proceedings, upholding the decree obtained by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The executing court is bound by the decree passed by the trial court and cannot go beyond its scope or re-examine the core issues of the original judgment (!) (!) .
-
A subsequent purchaser of the property cannot challenge the validity or correctness of the original sale agreement or the decree for specific performance that was obtained in favor of the original decree holder (!) (!) .
-
The objections raised by the petitioner, including allegations of fraud and forgery regarding the agreement and signatures, were dismissed because these issues are beyond the scope of execution proceedings and should be determined in a regular trial court, not during execution (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that raising factual disputes such as signature discrepancies or claims of fraud in execution proceedings is inappropriate, as such matters require a proper trial with evidence, which is not permissible at this stage (!) .
-
The court acknowledged the potential hardship faced by the petitioner, especially considering his family circumstances, but held that procedural rules prevent the execution court from entertaining such defenses or claims of fraud at this stage (!) (!) .
-
The court reaffirmed the principle that the decree holder's rights are protected, and the petitioner, as a subsequent purchaser, cannot interfere with or contest the validity of the original agreement or the decree through objections in execution (!) .
-
Ultimately, the objections filed by the petitioner were found to lack merit, and the court dismissed the petition, upholding the original decree and the measures for its execution (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or further assistance.
JUDGMENT
Rekha Mittal, J. (Oral). - Challenge in the present petition has been directed against orders dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P4) and 16.03.2020 (Annexure P5) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Ludhiana whereby objections filed by the petitioner in execution No.36257 of 2013 have been dismissed and the Local Commission was appointed to execute and register the sale deed on behalf of JD Sangeeta Dhir in favour of Nirmal Kaur Gill, decree holder.
2. Ms. Nirmal Kaur Gill filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.06.2004 in respect of double storeyed House No.62-H measuring 100 sq. yards situated in village Sunet, abadi Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana against Smt. Sangeeta Dhir and Jasbir Singh in January, 2005, decided on 10.02.2011. In the said suit, the plaintiff also challenged sale deed dated 28.12.2004 executed by Smt. Sangeeta Dhir in favour of Jasbir Singh defendant No.2 therein. Onthe basis of decree dated 10.02.2011, Ms. Nirmal Kaur Gill filed execution No.36257 of 2013. The present petitioner filed objections (Annexure P2). He has alleged that Sangeeta Dhir never executed the alleged agreement dated 14.06.2004 in favour of the plaintiff/decree holder. After decree dated 10.02.2011 was passed, the decree holder did not make any effort to get the same recorded/incorporated in the revenue records. Sangeeta Dhir sold the suit property to Jasbir Singh vide sale deed dated 28.12.2004 and delivered possession thereof to the vendee. Jasbir Singh sold the property to Smt. Manjit Kaur vide sale deed dated 17.08.2006. Manjit Kaur through Paramjit Singh her general power of attorney sold the suit house to Jagjit Singh and Harpreet Singh sons of late Satnam Singh vide sale deed dated 14.11.2008. Jagjit Singh and Harpreet Singh were in possession of the suit house and they sold the disputed property to the petitioner vide vasika No.6496 dated 13.11.2014 for Rs.35 lakhs.
3. Counsel for the petitioner would argue that the executing Court dismissed the objections without framing issue(s). It is argued that since the petitioner raised the plea that suit has been decreed by playing fraud with the Court on the basis of forged and fabricated agreement to sell and concealment of material facts and mis-representation, the executing Court was required to frame a specific issue on the question of fraud and decide the controversy after permitting the petitioner to adduce evidence. It is further argued that huge loss would be caused to the petitioner in case he is dispossessed of the suit house. Counsel made a mercy plea that as the petitioner has a child with special requirements, dispossession from the house would be of serious consequence for his family including that special child.
4. To bring home his contention with regard to decree being the result of fraud, counsel has made a vain attempt to argue that alleged signatures of Sangeeta Dhir on the agreement dated 14.06.2004 do not tally with her signatures on sale deed dated 28.12.2004 executed in favour of Jasbir Singh, copies whereof are appended with the petition.
5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the paper book particularly various annexures appended with the petition but find that the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
6. The petitioner is a purchaser of the suit property under a sale deed executed even after the decree dated 10.02.2011 had been passed by the trial Court accepting claim of the decree holder for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.06.2004 while setting aside sale deed dated 28.12.2004 executed by Smt. Sangeeta Dhir in favour of Sh. Jasbir Singh. The contentions sought to be raised by the petitioner with regard to difference in signatures of Sangeeta Dhir on the agreement and sale deed aforesaid, at best, could be a defence plea to be raised by Smt. Sangeeta Dhir or Jasbir Singh. The disputed questions of fact that can be raised before the trial Court cannot be allow
