Karnail Singh vs Amit Garg - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1507

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Monga, J.
Karnail Singh – Appellant
Versus
Amit Garg – Respondent
R.S.A.No. 1358 of 2013
Decided On : 18-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. G.S. Punia Senior, Advocate, Ms. Harveen Kaur, Mr. Akash Yadav

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16

(C) - Agreement to sell - Plaintiff challenged the appellate court's decision not to grant specific performance, claiming readiness and willingness to perform on 15.12.2006 - Court found non-compliance with statutory requirements and failure to prove readiness - Earnest money forfeited as per agreement terms. (Paras 13, 18, 19)

(B) Readiness and Willingness - Courts must assess overall conduct and intention of the parties concerning performance under agreements. (Para 13.1)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant for the sale of land, paid earnest money, but claimed possession was not delivered as stipulated. Defendant denied presence on target date, alleging plaintiff's non-compliance and lack of readiness to perform obligations, resulting in forfeiture of earnest money.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found no valid grounds for granting specific performance and upheld forfeiture of earnest money based on the plaintiff's delay in action and conduct showing lack of readiness.

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract, and if the forfeiture of earnest money was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that readiness and willingness must be assessed from the parties' conduct and specific provisions of the agreement were essential to enforce specific performance or uphold forfeiture.

Result: Appeal accepted; findings of appellate court reversed, with directions to refund part of the earnest money.

Table of Content
1. background of contract and disputes (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. court's analysis on performance and forfeiture (Para 10 , 12 , 14)
3. judicial principles regarding specific performance (Para 13)
4. conclusion on appeal and orders (Para 15 , 16)

Judgment

Mr. Arun Monga, J.

For convenience, parties herein are addressed as per the recitals before learned trial Court.

2. Appellant herein is plaintiff assailing impugned judgment/decree dated 03.11.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Kaithal whereby appeal filed by respondent-defendant against judgment/ decree dated 13.04.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla declining relief of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.06.2006, but passing money decree of double amount of earnest money, was accepted and judgment/decree dated 13.04.2010 was set aside and suit of plaintiff was dismissed.

3. Briefly stated, facts, as noticed by learned Courts, are as below:

“2. Case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had entered into an agreement for sale of the land fully detailed and described in para no.1 of the plaint for a consideration of Rs. 5,08,000/- per acre vide duly executed an agreement for sale dated 30.6.2006 along with all rights appurtenant thereto such as bore and electric motor connection etc. It has been alleged that the defendant had received Rs. 4,50,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff at the time of execution of the said agreement for sale and the balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid to the defendant at the time of execution, attestation and registration of the sale deed, which was to be executed on 15.12.2006. It was also agreed that the possession of the suit land would be delivered to the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of sale deed. It was also agreed that in the case the defendant fails to get the deed executed, attested and registered the plaintiff shall be entitled either to recover the double of the said earnest money paid to the defendant or he can get the sale deed executed and registered through court. It was also agreed that in case, the plaintiff fails to get the sale deed executed and registered the earnest money paid by him shall stand forfeited and the said agreement for sale shall stand canceled. The expense for stamp and registration charges etc. were to be borne by the plaintiff. It has been further alleged that the plaintiff along-with one Gurpal Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of Village Patwi, District Ambala and along with the balance sale consideration and expense from stamp and registration charges etc. contacted the defendant at her house at Cheek on 12.12.2006 and offered the defendant to get the sale deed executed and registered but, the defendant told the plaintiff that they would out of station for 4/5 days and would not be available on 15.12.2006 and asked the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed and registered at any time after about one week and on the assurance of the defendant the plaintiff had not visited the office of Sub Registrar, Guhla on 15.12.2006. It has been alleged that the defendant served a legal notice dated 28.1.2007 upon the plaintiff on totally false and frivolous allegations vide which the plaintiff came to know that on 12.12.2006 the defendant along with her husband intentionally avoided the presence of the plaintiff for 15.12.2006, which shows the malafide and dishonest intention of the defendant to complete the said agreement for sale. The plaintiff served a notice dated 05.7.2007 upon the defendant calling upon the defendant on 18.7.2007 in the office of Sub Registrar, Guhla to complete her part of said agreement, on receipt of the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff visited the office of Sub Registrar, Guhla on 18.7.2007 along-with balance sale consideration and expenses for the stamp and registration charges etc. and waited the defendant for whole of the working day, but the defendant did not tur