RSA No.5240 of 2016 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA No.5240 of 2016 (O&M)

Date of Order:02.07.2018

Sukhwinder Singh

..Appellant

Versus

Jagroop Singh and another

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate,

for the appellant.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

Defendant No.2-appellant is in the regular second appeal

against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below while

decreeing the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated

03.01.2004.

Defendant no.2-appellant is a subsequent purchaser of the

property. Initially both the defendants did not appear inspite of service of

notice and the suit was ex-parte decreed on 14.06.2007. Defendant no.2-

appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil

Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte decree, which was ultimately

allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme court subject to costs.

Defendant no.2-appellant contested the suit.

Both the courts again after appreciating the evidence available

on the file decreed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell.

Learned counsel for the appellant, although, vehemently made

an effort to persuade this court to take a different view, however on a

Naresh Kumar

2018.07.04 12:13

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

RSA No.5240 of 2016 (O&M)

-2-

pointed question, learned counsel for the appellant fairly admitted that

defendant no.2-appellant has not lead any evidence to prove that the

agreement to sell dated 03.01.2004 is ante-dated. He has further admitted

that as per the agreement to sell, the total sale consideration for the land in

dispute was Rs.1,40,000, whereas his client purchased the same property for

a sum of Rs.80,000/-, which clearly proves that the sale deed executed by

defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 was only to frustrate the right of

the plaintiffs. Still further it has come on record that the plaintiff and

defendant no.2-appellant are residents of the same village.

Learned counsel for the appellant could not draw attention of

the court towards any substantive misreading or non reading of evidence

available on the file.

Keeping in view that the sale deed has been executed in favour

of defendant no.2, who is a subsequent vendor, therefore, defendant no.2 is

directed to join defendant no.1 in execution of the sale deed in favour of the

plaintiff. Defendant no.2 shall be entitled to move an application before the

Executing Court for retaining the amount to be deposited by the plaintiff in

the court enabling him to file a suit for recovery against defendant no.1, if

so advised.

With these observations, the regular second appeal is

dismissed.

July 02, 2018

(ANIL KSHETARPAL)

nt

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned

: Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No

Naresh Kumar

2018.07.04 12:13

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh