Back
HARKESH MANUJA
Gurnam Singh – Appellant
Versus
Pal Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral)
This order of mine shall decide above-mentioned two appeals which arise out of common judgment and decree dated 25.08.2024, passed by the First Appellate Court and involve common question of law and facts. For convenience, facts are being drawn from RSA-6369-2014.
2. By way of present appeals, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2014 passed by the First Appellate Court whereby, a suit for possession by way of specific performance, as well as permanent injunction, filed at the instance of appellants-plaintiffs stood dismissed on an appeal filed by respondent No.1, claiming himself to be legal heir of deceased-vendor namely, Hazara Singh.
3. Very briefly, based on an agreement to sell dated 24.11.1993 pertaining to land measuring 24 kanal and 8 marla comprised in Khata No.135/183, Khasra No.26//16, 17/1, 24, 25, 33//4,5/1 situated in Village Jainpur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, the appellants/plaintiffs, filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance. It was averred in the plaint that the agreement was entered into between Harnam Singh i.e. plaintiff No.2 and Hazara Singh @ Rs.4.10 lakhs per acre with 16.08.19
The court ruled that a suit for specific performance was not barred by Order 2, Rule 2 CPC as the appellants were permitted to withdraw a prior suit and file a new one.
The maintainability of a suit for specific performance is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC if a plaintiff omits to claim it in an earlier suit concerning the same cause of action.
Specific performance can be enforced against subsequent purchasers if they had knowledge of the original contract.
The court upheld the agreement to sell's execution and the plaintiff's readiness to perform the contract. Specific performance granted with enhanced consideration due to market changes reflecting the....
The subsequent suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell based on a different cause of action is maintainable.
Continuous readiness and willingness from contract execution to judgment essential for specific performance claims, substantiated evidence is necessary to challenge agreements.
Court emphasized that once agreements are executed and earnest money paid, specific performance can be enforced unless clear evidence of coercion or duress is presented.
Appellate courts must uphold trial court findings unless explicitly challenged; sales during ongoing litigation violate the principle of lis pendens.
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
