RSA No.4126 of 2016 (O&M)

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.4126 of 2016 (O&M)

Date of decision:16.08.2016

Gurdarshan Singh

... Appellant

Vs.

Jaswant Singh

... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:-

Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for

Mr. Harminderjeet Singh, Advocate

for the appellant.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

Appellant-defendant is aggrieved of the concurrent findings of

facts and law, whereby, suit seeking specific performance of the agreement

to sell dated 20.04.2005 in respect of plot measuring 210 square yards,

agreed to be sold for a total sale consideration of `15,00,000/- against the

receipt of earnest money of `10,50,000/- has been decreed by both the

Courts below.

Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Harminderjeet Singh,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant submits that

agreement to sell was registered under threat, coercion and pressure as the

plaintiff is none-else but real maternal uncle of Inderjit Singh, who was

complainant in the FIR. Gurpreet Singh and Harmanpreet Singh were co-

accused and Gurdarshan Singh was co-complainant in the aforementioned

FIR. The Court has non-suited the appellant on the premise that relationship

of Inderjit Singh and Jaswant Singh has not been proved, whereas, Jaswant

Savita

2016.08.23 11:36

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.4126 of 2016 (O&M)

{2}

Singh had admitted that Inderjit Singh was his nephew but the other side

had led the evidence that there was some other Inderjit Singh. It is sufficient

evidence to discard the discretionary relief under Section 20 of Specific

Relief Act. The agreement to sell was emphatically denied. The respondent-

plaintiff's alleged attesting witnesses to agreement to sell have also not been

examined. There are lot of contradictions. The extended date for execution

and registration of the sale deed was 02.01.2006 and the suit was filed on

04.01.2006. The extension was at the behest of the respondent-plaintiff

which shows that parties had not intended to enter into agreement to sell but

it was a document of security. Gurpreet Singh and Jaspreet Singh were

known to the appellant-defendant, who had to go abroad and introduced the

aforementioned persons and in this background of the matter, the alleged

surety bond/indemnity bond/guarantee was executed. All these facts have

escaped from the notice of the Courts below and thus, there is illegality and

perversity in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and

appraised the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and of the view

that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Inderjit Sharma,

for, Malkiat Singh son of Kehar Singh have proved the execution of the

agreement to sell which shows that parties had entered into agreement to

sell for the sale of plot against the total sale consideration as mentioned

above, much less, payment of earnest money of `10,50,000/-. A telegraphic

notice Ex.P3 was preceded to filing of suit. During the course of hearing, it

has been stated that the FIR is still pending in which the plaintiff is not an

Savita

2016.08.23 11:36

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.4126 of 2016 (O&M)

{3}

accused, much less, co-accused. The defendant has not been able to prove

that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the

contract. In the absence of the same, story coined by the appellant-defendant

was not proved. In my view, the Courts below have rightly exercised the

discretionary relief under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act that the

respondent-plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part

of the contract. In the sequence of facts noticed hereinabove, the concurrent

findings of facts can be interfered, in case, the appellant-defendant has been

able to bring on record the gross illegalit