Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Rajinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Ranjeet Singh – Respondent
R.S.A.No. 1771 of 2023
Decided On : 05-01-2024
Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell - Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 52 - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16(c) - Refund of Amount - Interest - Clause 5, Clause 3, Clause 7
Fact of the Case:
The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance regarding a land agreement. The trial Court non-suited the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance but awarded a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,50,01,000/- against refund of amount paid. The First Appellate Court upheld the money decree and awarded interest thereupon. The appellants/defendants challenged the decree and interest awarded in favor of the respondent/plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appellants/defendants failed to perform their obligations before the target date, and thus, the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to refund of the amount paid with interest. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no illegality or perversity with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below.
Issues: The main issue was the enforcement of the agreement to sell and the entitlement of the respondent/plaintiff to refund of the amount paid with interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the appellants/defendants' failure to perform their obligations before the target date entitled the respondent/plaintiff to refund of the amount paid with interest. The Court applied the principles of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to determine the rights of the parties.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decree for recovery of the amount and interest awarded in favor of the respondent/plaintiff.
Judgment
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.
By way of present appeal, challenge has been made to the judgments and decrees dated 07.08.2019 and 25.01.2023 passed by the Courts below, whereby a decree of recovery for a sum of Rs.4,50,01,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of payment of the individual amounts to the appellants/vendors till the date of decree besides interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of decree till actual realization of the decretal amount was passed in favour of respondent/plaintiff.
2. Briefly stated, based upon an agreement to sell dated 11.04.2012, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance regarding 209 kanal and 3 marla of land situated at village Kikkar Kheda, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka against appellants/ defendants/ vendors.
As per the plaint, the total sale consideration was of Rs.6,46,01,206.25/- with 15th of April, 2013 being the target date. It was further pleaded that a sum of Rs.30,01,000/- was paid as earnest money/advance money followed by part payments made on different dates with the following details:-
“a) Rs.30,01000/- (Thirty Lakhs One thousand) on 11.04.2012
b) Rs.70,00000 (Seventy Lakhs) on 17.04.2012
c) Rs.30,00000 (Thirty Lakhs) on 18.06.2012
d) Rs.70,00000 (Seventy Lakhs) on 22.12.2012
e) Rs.150,00,000 (One Crore Fifty lakhs) on 5.4.2013;
e) Rs.1,00,00000 (One Crore) on 15.04.2013.”
The respondent/plaintiff further pleaded that despite he being ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, the appellants/defendants did not execute the sale deed on 15.04.2013 thereby compelling him to file the present suit for grant of decree for possession by way of specific performance qua agreement to sell dated 11.04.2012, besides praying for mandatory injunction for issuance of directions to the appellants/defendants to clear the loan amount due against the suit land as an encumbrances as well as seeking relief of permanent injunction, restraining the appellants/defendants from alienating the suit property. In alternate, prayer was made for recovery of Rs.6,46,01,206.25/- i.e. Rs.4,50,01,000/- against refund of amount paid and Rs.1,96,00,206.25/- towards damages with future interest at the rate of 18% yearly from the date of filing the suit till recovery.
3. On notice, the appellants/defendants appeared and filed detailed written statements admitting the factum of execution of the agreement to sell dated 11.04.2012 besides no serious rebuttal being made towards the payment of Rs.4,50,01,000/- under the agreement. The suit was mainly contested on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. It was pleaded that the respondent- plaintiff having failed to appear before the sub-Registrar on the target date i.e. 15.04.2013 along with the balance sale consideration was thus required to be nonsuited.
4. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 07.08.2019, though non-suited the respondent/plaintiff as regards his prayer for grant of possession by way of specific performance, finding him to be not ready and willing to perform his part of agreement, yet, awarded a decree qua the alternate relief to the extent of recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,50,01,000/-.
Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/defendants filed first appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No.16 of 2023 dated 25.01.2023, assailing the money decree granted in favour of respondent/plaintiff. On the other hand, respondent/ plaintiff also filed his cross-objections being registered as Civil Appeal No. 302 of 2019 dated 04.12.2019, praying for interest upon the money decree awarded in his favour. The First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.01.2023, while upholding the money decree passed in favour of respondent/plaintiff awarded him interest thereupon @ 9% per annum from the date of payment/deposit of
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure of one party to perform its obligations under a reciprocal contract precludes that party from claiming performance of the reciproc....
(1) Though, principle that time is not essence of contract in a suit for specific performance of immovable property deserves its consideration in appropriate cases, said principle cannot be applied a....
The obligation to clear a mortgage lies with the seller, and the buyer's readiness to perform arises only after the seller fulfills this condition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the forfeiture of earnest money as per the terms of the contract is justified, especially when time is the essence of the contract.
The court affirmed that time is the essence of a contract for the sale of immovable property, requiring the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform, which he failed to do.
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
