SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2437

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
Shiv Charan – Appellant
Versus
Rupesh Kumar – Respondent
RSA NO. 6212 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 21-07-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tara Dutt, Advocate; For the Appellant
Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate; For the Respondent

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 10 - Agreement to sell - Plaintiff filed suit for possession by specific performance of an agreement dated 18.01.2008 for property sale - Defendant received earnest money but failed to execute the sale deed, alleging plaintiff's default - Courts upheld the claim, establishing plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the agreement - Defendant's claims of contract cancellation and earnest money forfeiture were not substantiated. (Paras 2, 10, 12, 14, 16)

(B) Performance of Contracts - Time is not regarded as the essence unless explicitly stated in contract; readiness and willingness must be proven by acceptable evidence even if no money was tendered. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
Defendant entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff, received earnest money, and later failed to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff maintained he was ready and willing to complete the purchase, while the defendant claimed the plaintiff defaulted and sought to forfeit the earnest money. (Paras 10, 12)

Findings of Court:
The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed; the courts found that the defendant failed to perform his obligations under the agreement while the plaintiff was always ready to fulfill his part. (Paras 9, 10)

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and if the defendant's claims of contract cancellation were valid. (Paras 8, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The courts emphasized the importance of readiness and willingness of the parties in enforcing specific performance, ruling against the defendant whose failure to meet contractual obligations led to the plaintiff's rights being upheld. (Para 14)

Result: Appeal dismissed; concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld.

JUDGMENT

Ms. Amarjot Bhatti, J.

The appellant/defendant - Shiv Charan has filed Regular Second Appeal against impugned judgment and decree dated 14.08.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide which learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana dismissed the appeal preferred by Shiv Charan - appellant/defendant and the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana in favour of Rupesh Kumar - respondent/plaintiff was upheld.

2. Rupesh Kumar - respondent/plaintiff had filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 18.01.2008, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour regarding a portion of House No. B-XVIII-3675 measuring 102 Sq. Yd. consisting of two shops, one room, kitchen, court-yard duly fitted with electricity, water supply, sewerage and shutters on the two shops comprising in Khasra No. 66//22/2, Khata No. 37/47 situated in the revenue estate of Village Taraf Karbara, known as Model Gram Road, Ludhiana, after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 33,50,000/- alongwith the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or creating any encumbrance either himself or through agents etc. as detailed in the head note of the plaint.

3. The plaintiff submitted that defendant is the owner of the aforesaid property which he had agreed to sell in his favour vide agreement dated 18.01.2008 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 44,50,000/-. The defendant had received earnest money of Rs. 11,00,000/- in the presence of marginal witnesses and he agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 30.06.2008. It was agreed by the defendant that the house which was mortgaged with UCO Bank, Chaurha Bazar, Ludhiana, he will produce No Due Certificate from the bank after making payment of entire outstanding loan amount. He would also produce TS-1, original sale deed and cleared title in the shape of Jamabandi before 30.06.2008 and would execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. On 30.06.2008 and 01.07.2008 were declared holidays by the State Government and the plaintiff requested the defendant orally to execute the sale deed on 02.07.2008. On this date, the defendant got his presence marked before the concerned authority where he was present with balance sale consideration and money required for other expenses as per the terms of agreement dated 18.01.2008 but the defendant did not turn up to perform his part of agreement to sell. The plaintiff inquired from the bank and came to know that the defendant did not clear the loan amount. He repeatedly requested the defendant to clear the bank loan and to execute the sale deed in his favour. On 15.07.2008, he served legal notice upon the defendant through his counsel requesting to clear the loan of the bank, to get TS-1 from M.C Ludhiana, No Due Certificate from the bank and to execute the sale deed in his favour on or before 29.07.2008. The plaintiff received reply to the legal notice dated 15.07.2008 (inadvertently the date of agreement was mentioned wrongly as 11.01.2008) through his counsel Sh. L.S. Rai, Advocate in which he intimated that property in question was free from lien, charges and encumbrances and that the plaintiff was not having sufficient funds to get the sale deed executed. In the said reply, the defendant admitted the execution of agreement as well as receipt of Rs. 11,00,000/- as earnest money. The defendant instead of executing the sale deed filed caveat in the Court. He further came to know from reliable sources that the defendant was trying to dispose off the property by way of sale to some other persons. The plaintiff was always ready and willing and he is still ready and willing to perform his part of agreement. On 29.07.2008, the plaintiff remained present before the concerned authority with balance sale consideration alongwith two cheques for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- and another for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith c

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top