RSA No.1973 of 2018(O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.1973 of 2018(O&M)

Date of decision: 24.4.2018

Smt. Prem Lata and another

…..Appellants

VERSUS

Sandeep Kumar

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

Present:

Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate for the appellants.

*****

REKHA MITTAL, J.

CM No.5919-C of 2018

Heard.

Allowed as prayed for.

CM No.5920-C of 2018

Heard.

Allowed as prayed for.

Annexures A-1 to A-10 are taken on record subject to just

exceptions.

Disposed of accordingly.

RSA No.1973 of 2018

The present appeal directs challenge against concurrent

findings recorded by the Courts whereby suit for specific performance of

agreement to sell dated 31.01.2011 in respect of 1/4^th share out of 68

kanals 3 marlas situated within revenue estate of village Ateli, Tehsil

Narnaul, District Mohindergarh filed by the respondent/plaintiff was

decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.05.2015 and

Diwaker Gulati

2018.05.16 14:10

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

RSA No.1973 of 2018(O&M)

2

the appeal preferred by the unsuccessful defendants/appellants did not find

favour with the Additional District Judge, Narnaul.

In short, the respondent/plaintiff filed suit on the averment

that the appellants/defendants agreed to sell the suit land for sale

consideration of Rs.25,50,000/- and executed the agreement dated

31.01.2011 whereby the earnest money of Rs.22,50,000/- was paid by the

respondent to the appellants. The sale deed was agreed to be executed and

registered on or before 30.01.2012. The respondent always remained

ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. He served legal

notice dated 17.01.2012 and remained present in the office of Registrar on

the target date i.e. 30.01.2012. Another legal notice dated 02.02.2012 was

served calling upon the appellants to get the sale deed registered by

appearing in the office of Registrar on 15.02.2012 but the appellants failed

to respond.

The appellants/defendants filed the written statement and in

turn raised preliminary objections inter alia cause of action; locus standi

and maintainability of the suit in the present form. They denied execution

of agreement dated 31.01.2011, receipt of earnest money or liability to

execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent. It is averred that Sarvan

Devi, appellant No.2 is a Parda Nashin lady and is a widow. Appellant

No.1 is married at Khori in Rajasthan. Appellant No.2 had been reposing

confidence in the respondent who used to visit her. The respondent

advised her to partition the joint khewat and took the appellants to office of

Registrar Ateli and got their signatures in some register on the pretext that

application for partition has been filed. The agreement is stated to be

based upon fraud, cheating and misrepresentation.

Diwaker Gulati

2018.05.16 14:10

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

RSA No.1973 of 2018(O&M)

3

The trial Court framed issues reproduced in para 6 of the

judgment of trial Court and permitted the parties to adduce evidence in

support of their respective claims. After having heard counsel for the

parties in the light of materials on record, the trial Court accepted claim of

the respondent qua the agreement in question and his having remained

ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. As has been

noticed hereinbefore, findings of the trial Court were affirmed in appeal.

Counsel for the appellants would urge that the agreement in

question was procured by the respondent/plaintiff taking undue advantage

of illiteracy of the appellants. It is argued that though Prem Lata has

admitted her signatures on the agreement but she has explained that she

does not know how to rea