Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL
Sawinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Hardev Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kshetarpal, J.(Oral)
1. The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs Vs. Chandrika and others, (2016) 6 SCC157.
2. In this regular second appeal, defendant No.l assails the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court while decreeing the plaintiff's suit for grant of decree of declaration by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. The trial Court held that defendant executed the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff with respect to land measuring 14 kanal and 16 marlas. However, the relief of specific performance was declined while granting alternative relief of refund on the ground that defendant No.2 to 6 are bonafide purchasers. The First Appellate Court on reappreciation of evidence concluded that defendant No.2 to 6 are not bonafide purchasers and in fact they are close relatives of not only the plaintiff but also of the defendant No.l. They are also neighbours and co-
The main legal point established in the judgment is the justification for refusing specific performance due to the property being subject to a pending dispute and lack of evidence for legal necessity....
The suit for specific performance at the instance of any one party is maintainable, and the legal provisions of the Specific Relief Act, Transfer of Property Act, Civil Procedure Code, and Indian Evi....
The court held that the plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and concurrent findings by lower courts are not to be disturbed without a substantial question of....
The plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract, as required by Sec. 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, influenced the Court's decision to set....
Court is conscious of its limitation while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Unless the findings are so perverse, the same cannot be accepted, the Court would not....
Specific performance can be enforced against subsequent purchasers if they had knowledge of the original contract.
The court ruled that specific performance requires proof of intent to sell, and failure to prove such intent negates the right to enforce the agreement against the defendant.
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.
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
