IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARUN MONGA, J.
Prem – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh & Anr. – Respondents
RSA-3208 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 02-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the property sale agreements and background. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. issues framed for determining contractual obligations. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court’s analysis of evidence and agreements' validity. (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. review of concurrent findings by lower courts. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion: appeal dismissed. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
Arun Monga, J. (Oral)
For convenience, parties herein are addressed as per the recitals before learned trial Court.
2. Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts below, appellant/defendant No.2 is in second appeal before this Court assailing learned trial Court judgment and decree dated 12.07.2016, as upheld by learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 03.04.2019, inter alia decreeing suit of plaintiff for specific performance and declaring that sale deed No.2366 dated 08.07.2013 was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Further defendants were directed to get sale-deed executed and registered in favour of plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein in accordance with terms and conditions of agreement to sell subject to payment of balance sale consideration and other expenses required for execution of sale deed.
3. Briefly stated, facts, as noticed by learned Courts, are as below:
"2. Succinctly stated, the facts as alleged by the plaintiff are that the defendant no.1 is owner in possession to the extent of 1/4 share in land comprised in khewat no. 926/844 khata no. 1022 rect. No. 43 killa no.18/2/1(0-17) kitta 1 land measuring 0 kanal 17 marla, which comes to kanal 4.25 marlas i.e. 128 Sq. yards vide Farad Jamabandi of the year 2008-09, situated at village Ukhachana Teh. & Distt. Jhaar. It is further submitted that the defendant no.1 for his bonafide financial requirement and legal need offered to sell the suit property i.e. 4.25 Marlas i.e. 128 sq. yards to the plaintiff and after the negotiation, the deal was finalized between the parties, whereby the defendant no.1entered into an agreement to sell of his property/land, mentioned above, with plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 4,48,000/- and in this regard the defendant no. I executed an agreement for sale in favour of plaintiff on 10.05.2013 in presence of attesting witnesses. The defendant no. 1 received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.05.2013 in presence of attesting witnesses as earnest money. The defendant no. I further agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 20.05.2013 and promised to receive the balance consideration amount from the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of sale deed.It is also averred that the plaintiff was ready and willing to get executed the sale deed in his favour as per the agreement dated 10.05.2013 and on 20.05.2013, the plaintiff remained present before sub-registrar, Jhajjar alongwith balance consideration amount, stamp charges and misc. expenses etc. to perform his part of agreement and to execute and register the sale deed of property mentioned above, in his favour but the defendant no. 1 did not come to perform his part of agreement and hence the plaintiff got marked his presence before the Sub Registrar, Jhajjar along with affidavit. It is also submitted that the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 25.05.2013 to the defendant no.1and requested him to execute and register the sale deed of agreed land measuring 128 sq. yards but the defendant did not execute and register the sale deed, rather sent the reply of legal notice based on false,frivolous and baseless facts. It has been lastly prayed that a decree of specific performance of the written contract/ agreement dated 10.05.2013 be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and the defendant be directed to execute the sale deed in respect of suit property land specifically mentioned in para no. 1 & 2 of the plaint and to get the same registered in favour of the plaintiff and the sale deed no. 2366 dated 08.07.20
AI
The court upheld that corroborated expert evidence can establish the authenticity of a contested agreement, supporting the plaintiff's claim for specific performance.
The court ruled that doubts surrounding the authenticity of a Sale Agreement preclude the granting of specific performance, emphasizing the plaintiff's burden to prove the agreement's validity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for substantiating the agreement of sale and the sale consideration, as well as the importance of saleable interest in the property....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defendant's execution of the agreement to sell and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract were key factors in t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.