RSA 2862 of 2016 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA 2862 of 2016 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 28, 2022

Harmohinder Singh Virk

...Appellant

Versus

Rahul Arora and another

... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH

Present :

Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Varun Prakash, Advocate

for respondents No. 1 and 2.

FATEH DEEP SINGH, J. (Oral)

The undisputed background that is well enunciated

in the submissions of the counsel for the two sides and is also

clearly reflected from the records of the Courts is that defendant

No. 1 Rahul Arora has inherited the estate from his grand

parents besides other properties including the house in question

situated in the city of Chandigarh.

AMIT RANA

2022.03.31 09:51

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

RSA 2862 of 2016 (O&M)

2

While defendant No. 1 was residing abroad his

father defendant No. 2 Tilak Raj Arora being his attorney

entered into an agreement to sell dated 31.03.2021 for the sale

of this house with the plaintiff. The terms and conditions of

which agreement to sell are not at all displaced or disputed. It is

in pursuance of the same, amounts detailed in the pleadings

have been received on behalf of the owners either in cash or by

way of bank transactions. In all, a sum of Rs. 4 lacs stands paid

to the seller by the buyer out of total sum of Rs. 35 lacs. One of

the terms of the sale was that owner shall obtain 'No Objection

Certificate' from the estate officer, Chandigarh/Income tax

clearance certificate from the Income Tax Department.

When the deal could not be completed, the plaintiff

served upon defendants legal notice dated 21.06.2004 and,

thereafter, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a

decree by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell

dated 31.03.2011 and in the alternate sought relief for the

recovery of Rs.35 lacs as damages.

AMIT RANA

2022.03.31 09:51

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

RSA 2862 of 2016 (O&M)

3

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues

were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession

by way of specific performance of agreement

to sell dated 31.03.2001 in respect of H.No.

230, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh and in the

alternate for recovery of Rs.35 lacs as

damages for breach of contract? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.

4. Relief.

Plaintiff examined Satish Kumar, Criminal Ahlmad as

PW1 and himself stepped into the witness box as PW2 and also

examined Inderjit Singh Bhimbra as PW3 and proved

documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P13.

In rebuttal, defendants examined defendant No.2

Tilak Raj as DW2 (sic) and proved on record copies of rent

(Ex.D1 and Ex.D2) and copy of GPA Mark A.

AMIT RANA

2022.03.31 09:51

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

RSA 2862 of 2016 (O&M)

4

The Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division,

Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 24.05.2014 partly

decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that plaintiff is entitled to

receive a sum of Rs.4 lacs with interest @ 9% per annum from

the date of filing of the suit till its realization.

Aggrieved over these findings plaintiff again knocked

at the doors of learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh

who through impugned judgment and decree dated 19.03.2016

upholding the judgment of the trial Court dismissed the appeal

with costs and it is in these circumstances, the present regular

second appeal has come about by the unsuccessful

plaintiff/appellant.

In the light of admitted legal proposition as has been

laid down in ‘Kirodi (since deceased) through his L.R. Vs.

Ram Parkash and others’ Civil Appeal No. 4988 of 2019;

SLP(C) No. 11527 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019, the Court is

not