Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Vinod Kumar and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Chain Singh and Ors. – Respondents
RSA No.51 of 2008
Decided on 17.10.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents Nos.2 to 7: Ex-parte
For the Respondent No.8: Deleted
IMPORTANT POINT
Contract can also be enforced not only against a party to such an agreement but against any such person, who claims himself to be owner of property on account of subsequent contract.
Headnote:
(A) Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Appeal by defendant – Case of plaintiff stands admitted in written statement filed by defendants – It stands duly proved on record that plaintiff was ready and willing to make payment of balance sale consideration – There is no perversity as such in impugned judgments and decrees passed by Courts below, rather same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence as such, deserve to be upheld – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 11, 13, 21 and 22)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 19 – Specific performance of contract – Contract can also be enforced not only against a party to such an agreement but against any such person, who claims himself to be owner of property on account of subsequent contract – A person, who has paid his money in good faith, without notice of original contract can claim for specific performance of contract. (Para 15)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Sharma, J.—Instant Regular Second Appeal under S.100 CPC, lays challenge to judgment and decree dated 1.12.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, HP in Civil Appeal No. 4-N/13 of 2002, affirming judgment and decree dated 3.12.2001 passed by learned Sub Judge, First Class, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, in Civil Suit No. 2/1 of 2000, whereby suit having been filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff (hereinafter, ‘plaintiff’) for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.4.1998 (Ext. PW-2/A) came to be decreed.
2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit against respondents No. 2 to 8- defendants No. 1 to 5 (hereafter, ‘defendants No. 1 to 5’) and present appellants-defendants No. 6 and 7 (hereafter, ‘defendants No. 6 and 7’) in the court of learned Sub Judge First Class, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, praying therein for specific performance of contract/agreement to sell dated 20.4.1998, qua land comprised in Khasra No. 227/113, measuring 5 Bigha situate in Mohal Kotri, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, surrounded in the North by land of Gian Chand, in the South by the Shamlat land, in the East by the land of Ramesh Chand etc. and in the West by the land of Banwari Lal (hereinafter, ‘suit land’). Plaintiff averred that suit land was in possession of defendants No. 1 to 5 as described in Jamabandi for the years 1997-98. On 20.4.1998, defendants No. 1 to 5, agreed to sell the suit land to plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs.35,000/- out of which Rs.7,000/- was paid to them as part payment of sale consideration whereafter, plaintiff was put in possession of suit land. As per plaintiff, aforesaid defendants by way of agreement to sell agreed to execute sale deed on or before 31.12.1999, after payment of balance sale consideration. Parties agreed inter se them that remaining sale consideration would be paid at the time of registration of sale deed and in case, defendants No. 1 to 5 fail to do so, plaintiff would be at liberty to enforce the agreement to sell through court and in case plaintiff fails to pay the balance sale consideration at the time of execution of sale deed, earnest money of Rs.7,000/- paid by him shall stand forfeited in favour of defendants No. 1 to 5. Plaintiff claimed that he is in possession of suit land with effect from 20.4.1998 and has developed the same by constructing boundary wall. Plaintiff also claimed that he had been always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying balance sale consideration to defendants No.1 to 5 and even today he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract to get sale deed executed and registered in his favour. Plaintiff alleged that on 16.11.1999, when he went to Patwari for getting documents, he came to know that on 28.10.1999, defendants No. 1 to 5 have sold the suit land in favour of defendants No. 6 and 7 and as such, plaintiff approached defendants No.1 to 5 with the request to perform their part of contract by executing sale deed of suit land in his favour and offered balance sale consideration of Rs.28,000/- but defendants No.1 to 5 refused to do so. Plaintiff thereafter also approached Tehsildar Paonta Sahib and filed an application before him not to attest the mutation on the basis of sale deed in favour of defendants No. 6 and 7. Plaintiff also filed objections on 16.12.1999 before Assistant Collector 1st Grade Paonta Sahib requesting him not to attest the mutation but to no avail. Plaintiff claimed that mutation attested in favour of defendants No. 6 and 7 is illegal, void and not binding upon him. Plaintiff averred that defendants No. 6 and 7 who had prior knowledge about possession of the plaintiff over suit land are threatening to disposes him on the basis of sale deed. Plaintiff also claimed that since defendants No. 6 and 7 had prior knowledge about his possession over the suit land and agre
