Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh vs Krishan And Ors on 13 December, 2022
RSA-6128-2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-6128-2018 (O&M)
Date of pronouncement: 13.12.2022
Ramesh
...Appellant
Versus
Krishan and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present: Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.
*****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff Krishan
son of Zile Singh had filed a suit against defendants Ramesh, Kamlesh
Devi and Sewamati seeking possession by way of specific performance
of registered agreement to sell dt. 06.01.2009 in respect of land
measuring 5K-3M out of total land measuring 164K-6M i.e. 103/3286
share comprised in khewat No.97 situated in village Dhiranwas, Tehsil
& District Hisar; it is case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 had
executed the sale deed No.449 dated 08.07.2010 in favour of
defendants No.2 and 3 on the basis of registered agreement dt.
06.01.2009, however, that sale deed is illegal, null and void and is
liable to be set aside; the plaintiff craved for grant of permanent
1 of 5
RSA-6128-2018 (O&M) -2-
injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, mortgaging,
transferring or leasing out the suit property to anybody else except the
plaintiff; according to the plaintiff, at the time of entering into
agreement to sell dt. 06.01.2009 with the defendant No.1 for total sum
of Rs.5 lacs, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to him
agreeing to pay the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- at the time of
execution and registration of sale deed on 15.01.2010; the plaintiff has
always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and
on 19.01.2010, he went to the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Balsamand
to perform his part of the contract having with him the remaining sale
consideration of Rs.50,000/-; initially as per agreement to sell, the date
of execution and registration of sale deed qua the suit property was
fixed as 15.01.2010 but it was not the day to register the sale deed in
the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Balsamand. However, on the next day,
it was fixed for execution and registration of sale deed as 19.01.2010;
the plaintiff went to the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Balsamand but
defendant No.1 did not turn up to perform his part of the contract;
defendant No.1 instead of performing his part of the contract in favour
of the plaintiff got executed and registered the sale deed of suit
property in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 on 08.07.2010 thereby
violating the terms & conditions of agreement to sell; on refusal of
defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff had brought the
suit in question.
2. On notice, defendant No.1 appeared and filed written
2 of 5
RSA-6128-2018 (O&M) -3-
statement, contesting the suit raising various legal objections. On
merits, contending that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are cousins.
Defendant No.1 was in need of money and he took a loan of Rs.2 lacs
from the plaintiff as security for repayment of the loan, defendant No.1
got executed an agreement to sell dt. 06.01.2009. The agreement is
only a document of security for repayment of loan of Rs.2 lacs and rate
for similar land in the village is more than Rs.15 lacs per acre and
nobody would sell his land measuring 5K-3M merely for Rs.5 lacs. It
is beyond imagination that plaintiff would pay 90% of total
consideration of amount of Rs. 5 lacs and in lieu of it will not get
possession of any part of the land. There is no term in the agreement
that possession of any part of the land would be given at any point of
time to the plaintiff.
3. It is contended that defendant No.1 being owner in the
possession of the land was within his right to transfer the same to
anybody and he had rightly done so in favour of defendants No.2 and 3
delivering the possession to them. Therefore, the sale deed dt.
08.07.2010 is binding upon everybody.
4. The conclusion by the trial Court is that defendant No.1
had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of
Rs.5 lacs receiving Rs.4,50,000/- as earnest money without taking the
possession of the suit property and for payment of balance amount a
time of one year was agreed upon, however, some factors arose a
suspicion in the mind of the Court as to why one would pay 90% of the
3 of 5
RSA-6128-2018 (O&M) -4-
sale consideration as earnest money without taking the possession of
property regarding which agreement had been entered into and for a
small of Rs.50,000/-, why the purchaser waited for a long time of one
year. Furthermore, this property has already been sold to defendants
No.2 and 3, vide sale deed No.449 dated 08.07.2010, noting that in
terms of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the jurisdiction to grant
decree of specific performance is discretionary and Court is not bound
to grant this relief in every eventuality. It was not found desirable to
grant relief of specific performance but refund of Rs.4,50,000/- by
defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. The contention of defendant No.1 that
he has already refunded the loan amount of Rs.2 lacs to the plaintiff
was not accepted for the reason of the same having not been proved,
therefore, the suit was decreed for recovery along with interest and
costs.
5. Now coming to the judgment passed by learned Addl.
District Judge, Hisar; in appeal, learned Addl. District, observing that it
was not a fit case for awarding relief of specific performance, however,
observed that an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- had been paid to the plaintiff,
therefore, defendant No.1 was held liable to reply that amount along
with interest.
6. I am of the considered view that the findings recorded by
the Courts below are correct and there is no reason to differ with the
same. The judgments passed are proper and appropriate, not suffering
from any illegality or infirmity. No substantial question of law or fact is
4 of 5
RSA-6128-2018 (O&M) -5-
involved in this case. The appeal is found to be without merit and is
dismissed accordingly.
13.12.2022 (H.S. MADAAN)
sumit.k JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
5 of 5
