Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Kaur And Ors vs Bhura Singh on 17 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054813
RSA-4368-2011(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-4368-2011(O&M)
Reserved on:-11.4.2023
Date of Pronouncement:-17.4.2023
Sukhwinder Kaur and others
...Appellants
Versus
Bhura Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Mr.D.D. Bansal, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.R.M.Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Bhura Singh
had brought a suit against defendant Mohinder Singh, seeking possession
of the suit property by way of specific performance of agreement to sell
dated 30.4.2005 besides seeking permanent injunction restraining the
defendant from alienating the suit property in any manner to some other
person except the plaintiff.
As per the case of the plaintiff, defendant being owner in
possession of the suit property had agreed to sell the same with the
plaintiff on 30.4.2005 for a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- receiving Rs.1,00,000/-
as earnest money and the stipulated date to execute the regular sale deed
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054813
RSA-4368-2011(O&M) -2-
was fixed as on or before 1.12.2005 on payment of remaining
consideration amount. According to the plaintiff, he has always been
ready and willing to perform his part of contract and on 1.12.2005, he
along with Harnek Singh, Lumberdar remained present in the office of
Sub Registrar, Dhuri to get the sale deed executed but the defendant did
not turn up, therefore the transaction could not be completed; thereafter
the plaintiff requested the defendant several times to come forward to
execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per the terms and
conditions of the agreement but he put off the matter, giving rise to a
cause of action to the plaintiff to bring the suit in question.
2. On notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement
contesting the suit contending that the agreement set up by the plaintiff is
result of fraud and misrepresentation as well as without consideration; the
rate of the property in the village is more than Rs.1,85,000/- per bigha,
therefore question of entering into agreement for selling the land for a sum
of Rs.1,55,000/- did not arise. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the
suit.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed:
1. Whether the defendant being owner in possession of the suit
property entered into an agreement to sell the same with the
plaintiff on 30.4.2005 for Rs.1,55,000/- and also received Rs.One
lac as earnest money and sale deed was agreed to be executed on or
before 1.12.05? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054813
RSA-4368-2011(O&M) -3-
agreement to sell? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the specific performance of the
agreement to sell in question? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession of the
proeprty under agreement? OPP.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction
as prayed for? OPP.
6. Whether the agreement to sell is result of fraud and mis-
representation and the same is without consideration? OPD.
7. Whether the agreement being unregistered does not create any
right, title or interest in favour of the plaintiff? OPD.
8. Whether the defendant has been dragged into unnecessary
litigation? OPD.
9. Relief.
4. The parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead
evidence in support of their respective claims.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court
of Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.), Dhuri vide judgment and decree dated 18.8.2009
decreed the suit of the plaintiff by giving issue-wise findings.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
defendants being legal heirs of Mohinder Singh had filed an appeal in the
Court of District Judge, Sangrur, which was assigned to Addl.District
Sangrur, who vide judgment and decree dated 23.7.2011 dismissed the
same.
7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the defendants have knocked at the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054813
RSA-4368-2011(O&M) -4-
door of this Court by way of filing a regular second appeal praying that
the same be accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the
Courts below be set aside and the suit be dismissed.
8. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent/plaintiff,
who has put in appearance through counsel.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going
through the record.
10. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the
respondent has contended that the decree has since been implemented and
sale deed in favour of respondent/plaintiff has been executed and he has
come in possession of the suit property. Whereas learned counsel for the
appellants states that for want of necessary instructions from his clients,
he is unable to affirm or refute these contentions.
11. In this case both the Courts below taking into view the
pleadings of the parties and considering the evidence adduced by them in
light of the settled legal position have come to the conclusion that
defendant Mohinder Singh had entered into a legal and valid agreement to
sell dated 30.4.2005 Ex.P1 with the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,55,000/-
receiving Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money and stipulated date for execution
of sale deed was fixed as on or before 1.12.2005. It has also been
concluded that plaintiff has all alone been ready and willing to perform
his part of contract but defendant dragged his feet in the matter and did
not come forward to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in
terms of the agreement to sell Ex.P1. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff for
possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054813
RSA-4368-2011(O&M) -5-
agreement to sell dated 30.4.2005 on payment of balance consideration
amount of Rs.55,000/- was decreed issuing a direction to defendant to
execute the sale deed within a period of two months from the date of
decree after receiving the remaining sale consideration. The plaintiff had
been directed to deposit the remaining sale consideration within a period
of two months. The defendant was further restrained from alienating the
suit property to anybody else except the plaintiff. The version set up by
the defendant that he had not entered into any agreement to sell with the
plaintiff and the same was result of fraud, misrepresentation and without
consideration was considered and rejected. The First Appellate Court by a
detailed and minute analysis of the factual and legal position found itself
in agreement with the trial Court.
12. I find that the findings returned by the Courts below are
based upon proper appreciation of facts and evidence as well as correct
interpretation of law. I do not see any reason to disagree with the Courts
below and take a different view and further to interfere with the impugned
judgments and decrees. Those judgments and decrees are upheld.
13. No substantial question of law or fact arises in this appeal.
14. The appeal stands dismissed with costs accordingly.
Since the main appeal stands dismissed, the miscellaneous
application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
17.4.2023 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054813
5 of 5
