Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL
Gurdev Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jagdeep Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) -
1. FACTUAL MATRIX
1.1. The plaintiff assails the correctness of first appellate court's judgement which in turn has reversed/modified the judgment of the trial court.
1.2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed
1.3. The appellant (Gurdev Singh son of Bhura Singh) filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 02.01.2006. Smt. Hardeep Kaur wife of Sh. Gurdev Singh son of Sh. Kehar Singh was the owner of land measuring 48 kanals being 960/1954th shareholder of total land measuring 97 kanals and 14 marlas, situated in village Gobindgarh. She on receipt of Rs.5,25,000/-, out of total sale consideration of Rs.9,25,000/- entered into an agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff on 02.01.2006. The sale deed was to be executed on 05.06.2006, however, defendant no.1-Smt. Hardeep Kaur fraudulently sold the suit land in favour of defendant no.2-Jagdeep Singh son of Sh. Sadhu Singh, vide sale deed dated 27.03.2006.
1.4. Defendant no.1 denied the execution of the agreement to sell. It was asserted by her that one Sh.Harbans Singh, Ex. Sarp
Bona fide purchasers must prove lack of notice for protection under prior agreements.
A party seeking specific performance must continuously prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract; failure results in dismissal of the claim.
The court determined the bonafide status of the purchaser without notice and the necessity for the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness for specific performance.
Agreements lacking specific property details are unenforceable; specific performance is not guaranteed and must meet requirements of certainty and equity.
Specific performance can be denied due to inordinate delay and significant increase in property value, even if the plaintiff proves a valid contract.
The court affirmed that the burden of proving forgery lies with the party alleging it and upheld the validity of the sale agreement, reinforcing principles of specific performance in contract law.
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
