Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 2077
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Smt. Poonam Mahajan – Appellant
Versus
Sh. Naresh Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
RSA-208-2010 (O&M); RSA-1548-2010(O&M); CR-1610-2017 (O&M); CR-2409-2017 (O&M) and CR-2416-2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 17-08-2022
Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate for the Appellant in Rsa-208-2010 Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mittal, Advocate for the Appellant in Rsa-1548-2010 for Petitioner in Cr-1610, 2409 and 2416 of 2017 and for Respondent No.5 in Rsa-208-2010 Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in Rsa-1548-2010 Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for Respondent-Mukesh Kumar Mahajan in Cr-2416, 2409 and 1610 of 2017
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of satisfying the requirements of specific performance cases, including the validity of agreements, readiness and willingness of the parties, and the protection of bonafide purchasers under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Headnote:
Specific Relief Act - Property Dispute - Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which protects a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of a previous agreement to sell. The court also emphasized the importance of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract in specific performance cases.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved interconnected property disputes arising from agreements to sell a property. The courts had to determine the validity of the agreements and the readiness and willingness of the parties to perform their contractual obligations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgments passed by the lower courts were not satisfactory and set them aside, directing the trial court to decide the matters afresh. The court also impleaded necessary parties and granted the parties an opportunity to lead further evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the agreements to sell, the readiness and willingness of the parties to perform their contractual obligations, and the status of the bonafide purchaser under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the unsatisfactory judgments of the lower courts, the need for a fresh decision, and the importance of impleading necessary parties and granting the opportunity for further evidence.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and remitted the entire matter back to the trial court for a fresh decision, granting the parties an opportunity to lead further evidence.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - CM-5444-C-2022 in RSA-208-2010
1. Allowed as prayed for, subject to all the just exceptions.
Legal representatives of deceased respondent no.5-Sh. Sh.Manjit Singh, as mentioned in para 1 of the application, are permitted to be brought on record, for the purpose of defending the present appeal.
2. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
Main cases
3. By this order, five cases i.e RSA-208-2010, RSA-1548- 2010, CR-1610-2017, CR-2416-2017 and CR-2409-2017 shall stand disposed of.
4. The above five cases, are not only interconnected but also represented by the common counsels.
5. Some facts are required to be noticed. Sh.Sh.Naresh Kumar son of Sh.Kuldeep Raj was owner of the property. He is alleged to have entered into two different agreements to sell in favour of Smt. Poonam Mahajan (appellant No. 1 in RSA 208 of 2010) and Sh.Mukesh Kumar Mahajan (respondent No. 1 in Rs 1548 of 2010). In the suit filed by Smt. Poonam Mahajan both the courts have held that the agreement to sell in her favour executed by Sh.Naresh Kumar on 22nd December, 1999 is proved. However, the court after noticing that Sh.Naresh Kumar sold the property by way of a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2-Late Shri Gurcharan Singh Bedi refused to grant decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract and defendant No. 2 was a bonafide purchaser. The alleged agreement to sell in favour of Sh.Mukesh Kumar Mahajan is dated 12th February, 2000, allegedly executed by Sh.Naresh Kumar with regard to the same property. The suit filed by Sh.Mukesh Kumar Mahajan for decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12th February, 2000 was decreed for alternative relief by the trial court that is refund of the earnest money alongwith interest. However, the First Appellate Court has granted decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell.
6. The three revision petitions filed are dependent upon the result of these two regular second appeals.
7. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the judgements passed by the courts below alongwith the record, which was requisitioned. In RSA No. 208 of 2010, the First Appellate Court has just mentioned one sentence in its judgment that defendant No. 2 is proved to be bonafide purchaser. There is absolutely no discussion by the First Appellate Court on this aspect of the matter. Defendant No.2 claims to be the bonafide purchaser. Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 protects defendant No. 2 only if he proves that he is a bonafide purchaser for the valuable consideration without notice of the previous agreement to sell in favour of Smt. Poonam Mahajan. The findings of both the courts below with regard to the plaintiff's readiness and willingness are also not up to the mark.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel representing Smt. Poonam Mahajan and defendant No. 2 (late Sh.Gurcharan Singh Bedi) are ad idem that the judgements passed by both the courts below be set aside while directing the trial court to decide the matter afresh.
9. In RSA-1548-2010 filed by Sh.Manjit Singh and Sh.Ranjit Singh sons of late Sh.Gurcharan Singh Bedi, learned senior counsel representing the appellants has no objection if the judgements passed by both the courts below are also set aside while requesting the trial court to redecide the matter. However learned counsel representing the plaintiff Sh.Mukesh Kumr Mahajan (respondent herein) submits that this Court should finally decide the case itself.
10. It may be noted here that Mukesh Kumar Mahajan claims a subsequent agreement to sell in his favour from Sh.Naresh Kumar. The result of the suit filed by Sh.Mukesh Kumar Mahajan is dependent on the result of the first suit filed by Smt. Poonam Mahajan. Hence
