Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 27986
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Anil Kshetarpal, J
Ujjagar Singh (Deceased) through his Legal Representatives and Others – Appellant
Versus
Surender Kumar and Others – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 1099 of 2019 (O&M) | Regular Second Appeal No. 4436 of 2018 (O&M)
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate, Mr. Santosh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Kansal, Advocate
The court reaffirms that price increase isn't a valid reason to deny specific performance when readiness and willingness to execute contracts is established.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 28 - Regular Second Appeals challenges the judgment of the First Appellate Court which decreed the parties’ specific performance claims contrary to the trial Court's refund order, following established readiness and willingness to execute agreements to sell and receipt acknowledgments - Findings affirm execution proof and compromise claims cannot alter party duties. (Paras 3-9, 19)
(B) Legal standard for Specific Performance - The increase in land prices alone does not justify refusal of specific performance - Discretion exercised must comply with established legal precedents. (Paras 9)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed for possession through specific performance of agreements to sell land while the defendants contested by claiming misrepresentation of sale prices, denying some payments acknowledged.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court found execution of agreements affirmed but erred in ordering refunds based on price increases; the First Appellate Court rectified by ordering specific performance - appeal dismissed.
Issues: Determined whether increased prices justify denial of specific performance for agreements to sell.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere increase in market value does not suffice to deny executing contractual agreements in light of clear evidence of readiness and willingness to uphold agreements.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals regarding agreements to sell. (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. court findings on the appeals and contractual obligations. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 3. court's ratio on price increase and specific performance. (Para 9 , 14) |
| 4. arguments submitted regarding the validity and proof of agreements. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final conclusion and dismissal of the appeals. (Para 19) |
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
1. Regular Second Appeal No. 1099 of 2019 (O&M)
Ujjagar Singh (Deceased) through his Legal Representatives and Others
... Appellant(s)
Versus
Surender Kumar and Others
... Respondent(s)
AND
2. Regular Second Appeal No. 4436 of 2018 (O&M)
Jagdeep Singh and Others
... Appellant(s)
Versus
Surender Kumar and Others
... Respondent(s)
RESERVED ON: 23.01.2024
PRONOUNCED ON: 29.01.2024
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present:
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Santosh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants (In RSA-1099-2019 and RSA-4436-2018).
Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate
for the appellant No.9, 10 and 12 (In RSA-1099-2019)
and for the appellant No.6, 7 and 9 (In RSA-4436-2018).
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Priyanka Kansal, Advocate
for the respondents.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
CM-639-C-2024 In RSA-1099-2019
1.
As prayed for, the application is allowed.
RSA-1099-2019 And RSA-4436-2018
2.
With the consent of the learned senior counsel representing the
parties, two regular second appeals i.e. Regular Second Appeal No. 4436 of
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2024.02.02 10:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2024:PHHC:011645
Regular Second Appeal No. 1099 of 2019 (O&M) AND
2
Regular Second Appeal No. 4436 of 2018 (O&M)
2018 and Regular Second Appeal No. 1099 of 2019 shall stand disposed of
by a common order. Both the appeals are between the same parties, though
arising from two separate agreements to sell. The learned senior counsel
representing the appellants has only referred to the paper-book and the
requisitioned record of the Regular Second Appeal No. 1099 of 2019 which
is considered as a lead case.
3.
In both the appeals, the defendants assail the correctness of the
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court which, in turn, has
modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In substance,
two separate suits filed by the plaintiffs for possession by way of specific
performance of the agreement to sell have been decreed by the First
Appellate Court, whereas the trial Court ordered refund of the amount after
finding that the plaintiffs have successfully proved the agreement to sell and
they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.
The trial Court held that the prices of the land have steeply increased,
therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the discretionary relief and the
finding of the trial Court has been reversed by the First Appellate Court
while confirming the finding of fact that the agreement to sell was not only
entered on receipt of the staggered payments at various stages and the
plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.
4.
From both the appeals filed, some of the appellants have
already withdrawn their appeal.
5.
The facts are being noticed from the Regular Second Appeal
No. 1099 of 2019 being the lead case. The defendant No.1 to 20 admit the
receipt of ₹ 50,00,000/- on 10.02.2006, from the plaintiffs No.12 to 15. The
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2024.02.02 10:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2024:PHHC:011645
Regular Second Appeal No. 1099 of 2019 (O&M) AND
3
Regular Second Appeal No. 4436 of 2018 (O&M)
agreement to sell between the defendants No.1 to 20 in favour of the
plaintiff No.12 to 15 was executed on 07.03.2006 with respect to the land
measuring 1316 kanals and 7 marlas (164.54 acres) on receipt o
