Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanwar Singh Alias Kanwar Chand And Ors vs Rakesh Kumar on 18 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164134
2023:PHHC:164134
RSA-1070-2023(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1070-2023(O&M)
Reserved on:- 24.11.2023
Pronounced on:- 18.12.2023
Kanwar Singh @ Kanwar Chand and Ors.
....Appellants
Versus
Rakesh Kumar
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present:- Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Akshay Jindal, Mr. Aditya Jain and
Mr. Pankaj Gautam, Advocates
for the Caveator/respondent.
*****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
1. The appellants-Kanwar Singh @ Kanwar Chand and Ors.
have filed regular second appeal against impugned judgment and decree
dated 19.10.2022 passed by Additional District Judge, Rewari vide which
appeal preferred against judgment and decree dated 09.10.2018 passed by
learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, was dismissed.
2. As per the facts of the case, the respondent/plaintiff-Rakesh
Sharma filed suit for recovery of Rs.56,16,013/- from the defendants i.e.
Rs.12,11,000/- each from defendants No.1 and 2 i.e. Kanwar Singh @
Kanwar Chand and Ami Lal @ Ami Ram and Rs.10,64,671/- each from
defendants No.3 to 5 i.e. Baniram, Patram and Rajpal. It was alleged that
1 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164134
2023:PHHC:164134
RSA-1070-2023(O&M)
the defendants were owners in possession of land measuring 37 Kanal 2
Marla situated at Village Ladhuwas Gurjar, Tehsil and District Rewari
bearing khasra numbers as detailed in Jamabandi for the year 2013-14.
The said defendants entered into an agreement to sell regarding the
agricultural land as per their shares on 18.11.2011 for a sale consideration
of Rs.1,21,10,000/- per acre. They had received Rs.56,16,013/- as earnest
money from the plaintiff. The date fixed for the execution and registration
of sale deed was on or before 31.01.2012. The plaintiff was ready and
willing to perform his part of agreement to sell. He remained present in
the office of Sub Registrar, Rewari on 31.01.2012 from 9:00 AM to 5:00
PM but the defendants or their authorized person did not come present to
perform their part of agreement to sell. Thereafter, the plaintiff had met
the defendants personally several times to perform their part of agreement
to sell but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. However,
now the suit property has come under the town planning area and master
plan. There is a breach of agreement to sell on the part of defendants.
Therefore, he is entitled to recover his earnest money. On their refusal to
return the earnest money, the present suit was filed on 31.01.2015. In fact
the plaintiff had suffered heart attack and he was admitted in the hospital
till 05.02.2015 and ultimately, the suit was filed with a delay of about 7
days regarding which he had filed separate application.
3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. They appeared
and filed their written statement raising preliminary objections regarding
maintainability, concealment of facts, locus-standi and cause of action to
file the present suit. They also raised objection regarding the suit barred
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164134
2023:PHHC:164134
RSA-1070-2023(O&M)
by limitation. On merits, no specific reply was given to paras No.1 and 2
of the plaint and it was alleged that it is a matter of record and needs no
reply. It was further claimed that the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the
contents mentioned in para No.2 of the plaint. It was further alleged that
the plaintiff did not come to the office of Sub Registrar, Rewari on the
target date for the execution and registration of the sale deed. In fact he
was not having sufficient means for the execution and registration of the
sale deed. The defendants served a legal notice to the plaintiff terminating
the agreement to sell in question. The defendants had appeared on
31.01.2012 before the Sub Registrar, Rewari but the plaintiff did not turn
up. The sending of legal notice on 31.01.2012 to the defendants to execute
the sale deed was also denied. By taking this stand the defendants prayed
that the suit filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed with cost.
4. In replication, the averments in the written statement were
denied and those of plaint were reiterated. From the pleadings of the
parties, following issues were framed on 12.08.2015:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of
Rs.56,16,013/- with interest as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present
form? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and no locus standi to
file the present suit? OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from
filing the present suit? OPD.
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation? OPD.
6. Relief.
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164134
2023:PHHC:164134
RSA-1070-2023(O&M)
5. In order to prove the suit, the plaintiff examined himself as
PW2. He also examined Vivek as PW-1, Om Parkash Yadav as PW-3,
Rattan Lal Bhargav, Stamp Vendor as PW-4, Kuldeep, Registration Clerk,
Sub Registrar Office, Rewari as PW-5, Girdhari Lal Sharma, Nanital Bank
Limited, New Delhi as PW-6, Vikas Yadav as PW-7, Deshraj, Assistant
Draftsman, Office of Town Planner, Rewari as PW-8. Thereafter, learned
counsel for the plaintiff tendered in evidence Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-4
and Mark A to Mark-M and closed the evidence.
6. To rebut the evidence of the plaintiff, defendants examined
Baniram as DW-1, Suresh Yadav, Stamp Vendor, Rewari as DW-2, ASI
Suresh Kumar, Complaint Clerk, SP Office, Rewari as DW-3, Suresh
Kumar, Registration Clerk, Sub Registrar, Rewari as DW-4 and Santosh
Kumar, Clerk as DW-5 and thereafter, the evidence of defendatns was
closed by order vide order dated 03.03.2017.
7. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties, the suit filed by Rakesh Sharma was decreed vide judgment
and decree dated 09.10.2018 passed by the then Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Rewari. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and
decree, Civil Appeal was filed against respondents/defendants, which was
also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.10.2022. Feeling
aggrieved of this judgment and decree, the appellants filed present regular
second appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants argued that the
impugned judgment and decree dated 19.10.2022 passed by learned
Additional District Judge, Rewari dismissing the appeal preferred by them
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164134
2023:PHHC:164134
RSA-1070-2023(O&M)
against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2018 passed in favour of the
plaintiff by the then learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, is
without any justification. The evidence on record and the documents
proved on file were not rightly considered. The plaintiff-Rakesh Sharma
had filed simple suit for recovery of earnest money on the basis of
agreement to sell dated 18.11.2011 without seeking any relief for specific
performance of said agreement to sell. In fact the respondent/plaintiff was
never ready and willing to perform his part of agreement to sell. He was
not having balance sale consideration for the execution and registration of
sale deed. He never appeared in the office of Sub Registrar, Rewari on the
target date. It was the appellant/defendants who got their presence marked
by way of affidavit duly attested by the Executive Magistrate which is
Exhibit DW-1/B. The appellants/defendants had served legal notice dated
02.02.2012 to the respondent/plaintiff by calling upon him to get the sale
deed executed and registered on 08.02.2012 in the office of Sub Registrar,
Rewari. The copy of said legal notice is Exhibit DW-1/C and the postal
receipt is Exhibit DW-1/D. Therefore, it is wrongly claimed by the
respondent/plaintiff that he was ready and willing to perform his part of
agreement to sell. The suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking
recovery of earnest money is also barred by limitation. As per his version,
he claimed that he was admitted in the hospital from 28.01.2015 till
05.02.2015. In fact the suit was required to be filed within three years
from the date when the cause of action arose to the plaintiff after the target
date i.e. 31.01.2012. The respondent/plaintiff was fully aware of the
nature of suit property. He had wrongly claimed that the property had
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164134
2023:PHHC:164134
RSA-1070-2023(O&M)
come under R Zone ,Green Belt and National Highway and for that reason
he was not seeking the specific relief of agreement to sell. The said plea
taken by the respondent/plaintiff is not available to him as nothing was
concealed from him and knowing fully well he had agreed to purchase the
was property vide agreement to sell dated 18.11.2011 Exhibit PW1/B. The
aforesaid facts have not been considered by the Courts below and suit for
recovery along with interest has been wrongly decreed in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff. It is submitted that by accepting the present appeal,
the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking recovery may kindly be
dismissed.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff
argued that the findings given by the Courts below and the judgment and
decree passed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the First
Appellate Court do not require any interference. The execution of
agreement to sell dated 18.11.2011 Exhibit PW-1/B and receipt of earnest
money of Rs.56,16,013/- is not disputed by the appellants/defendants.
DW-1 Baniram during his cross examination has admitted the aforesaid
facts. The money was received as per their shares in cash as well as by way
of cheques which were duly encashed by them. The learned counsel for
the respondent/plaintiff referred to the statement of Desraj, Assistant
Draftsman office of Town Planner, Rewari PW-8 who confirmed that the
suit land situated in village Ladhuwas Gurjar, Tehsil and District Rewari
has come under the master plan since 13.12.2006. Therefore, the land is
covered under R Zone, Green Belt and National Highway. Therefore, the
agreement to sell dated 18.11.2011 Exhibit PW-1/B cannot be executed by
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164134
2023:PHHC:164134
RSA-1070-2023(O&M)
way of registration of sale deed. This fact was concealed by the
appellants/defendants and for this reason the respondent/plaintiff had filed
suit for recovery of earnest money handed over to the
appellants/defendants on the basis of said agreement to sell dated
18.11.2011. The aforesaid facts were rightly considered and appreciated
by the Courts below and his suit filed for recovery was rightly decreed.
10. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel
for both the parties and have also gone through the evidence on record
carefully. Some of the facts are admitted by both the parties. Admittedly,
the appellants/defendants are owners in possession of land measuring 37
Kanals 2 Marlas situated in Village Ladhuwas Gurjar, Tehsil and District
Rewari. Copy of jamabandi for the year 2013-14 is Exhibit P-4. It is
further not disputed by the appellants/defendants that they entered into an
agreement to sell dated 18.11.2011 Exhibit PW1/B regarding sale of
aforesaid land in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and in pursuance of the
same they had agreed to sell the land @ Rs.1,21,10,000/- per acre. They
had received earnest money of Rs.56,16,013/- by way of cash and cheques
which are duly incorporated in para No.1 of the said agreement to sell
dated 18.11.2011. In order to prove the execution of aforesaid agreement
to sell, the respondent/plaintiff Rakesh Sharma himself stepped into the
witness box as PW-2 to confirm the aforesaid facts and settled terms and
conditions agreed between the two parties. The respondent/plaintiff further
examined Vivek PW-1 the marginal witness who confirmed the scribbing
of aforesaid agreement to sell. Rattan Lal Bhargav, Stamp Vendor also
stepped into the witness box as PW-4 to confirm the sale of stamp papers
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164134
2023:PHHC:164134
RSA-1070-2023(O&M)
by him on which the said agreement to sell was scribed. Baniram one of
the appellant-defendant who stepped into the witness box as DW-1 also
confirmed the due execution of agreement to dated 18.11.2011 as well as
receipt of aforesaid earnest money as per their shares. It is further not
disputed that the date fixed for the execution and registration of sale deed
was on or before 31.01.2012. The respondent/plaintiff as well as the
appellants/defendants both of them claimed that they were present in the
office of Sub Registrar, Rewari to perform their part of agreement to sell,
as per settled terms and conditions of aforesaid agreement to sell. The
affidavit got prepared by the respondent/plaintiff to mark his presence is
Exhibit PW-2/B which is confirmed by examining Kuldeep, Registration
Clerk in the office of of Sub Registrar, Rewari as PW-5. On the other
hand, the appellants/defendants examined Suresh Kumar, Registration
Clerk DW-4 to prove their affidavit dated 31.01.2012 Exhibit DW-1/B
attested by the Executive Magistrate, Rewari. However, it has come in the
cross examination of Suresh Kumar, Registration Clerk DW-4 that he was
not posted at that place when the said affidavit was got attested. The
respondent/plaintiff claimed that initially, they were ready and willing to
perform their part of agreement to sell but later on they came to know that
the suit property had come under the master plan of Town Planner, Rewari
and for this reason, they had filed the present suit for recovery of earnest
money along with interest. It is the case of appellants/defendants that even
after the target date, they served notice dated 02.02.2012 calling upon the
respondent/plaintiff to perform his part of agreement to sell on 08.02.2012.
The copy of said notice is Exhibit DW-1/C and postal receipt is Exhibit
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164134
2023:PHHC:164134
RSA-1070-2023(O&M)
DW-1/D. As per the case of appellants/defendants, there was breach on
the part of respondent/plaintiff, therefore, he was not entitled to recover
the earnest money.
In the light of aforesaid factual position, I have examined the
documentary evidence and the oral evidence led by the parties as referred
above. The execution of agreement to sell dated 18.11.2011 Exhibit PW-
1/B, the receipt of earnest money of Rs.56,16,013/- as well as its terms and
conditions enshrined therein are not disputed. I have gone through the
contents of agreement to sell dated 18.11.2011 Exhibit PW-1/B. In the
aforesaid agreement to sell it is specifically mentioned that 'on the land
agreed to the sold no loan has been raised from a Bank, Government
Agency or Private Agency. There is no litigation going on with regard to
the land in question nor it has been attached or auctioned. The land in
question is not subject to any sale, gift deed, lease deed etc. It was
specifically mentioned that there is no restriction on the land owners to sell
the property. It was further clarified that neither the land has been acquired
nor any such notice has been received by them. The vendors further
clarified that they have not entered into an agreement to sell the land with
any other person. They were selling the land with their free consent as
they were in need of money for their future plans'. Contrary to the
aforesaid terms and conditions specifically mentioned in the agreement to
sell, the statement of Desraj, Assistant Draftsman office of Town Planner,
Rewari examined as PW-8 who categorically stated that the land in
question has been covered under master plan since 13.12.2006 vide letter
DRG No. D.T.P.(RE)460 of 2006 dated 13.12.2006. Thus the land is
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164134
2023:PHHC:164134
RSA-1070-2023(O&M)
covered under R Zone, Green Belt and National Highway. It cannot be
believed that the appellants/defendants were not aware of this fact. In fact
they agreed to sell their land by concealing this material fact, as a result of
which the aforesaid agreement to sell dated 18.11.2011 Exhibit PW1/B has
become un-executable. Admittedly, they have received huge amount of
earnest money of Rs.56,16,013/- as per the share detailed in the agreement
to sell dated 18.11.2011. Considering their conduct, they cannot be
permitted to forfeit the aforesaid amount received by him. The agreement
to sell dated 18.11.2011 has been frustrated because of the conduct of
appellant/defendants. The respondent/plaintiff rightly filed the suit
seeking recovery of earnest money with interest.
11. The appellants/defendants have also taken the objection that
the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. Admittedly, the
agreement to sell is dated 18.11.2011 and the target date fixed for
execution and registration of sale deed was up to 31.01.2012. On this date,
both the parties claimed their presence in the office of Sub Registrar,
Rewari. Thereafter, the appellants/defendants served another notice dated
02.02.2012 calling upon the plaintiff for execution and registration of sale
deed on 08.02.2012. The present suit has been filed on 10.02.2015. As per
Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the period of limitation in a suit for
specific performance of contract when a specific date is fixed for
performance is three years and if no such date is fixed when the plaintiff
has notice that performance is refused. Article 55 deals with suit for
compensation for the breach of any contract express or implied, that is
again the period of limitation is three years when the contract is broken or
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164134
2023:PHHC:164134
RSA-1070-2023(O&M)
when there are successive breaches when the breach is in respect of which
the suit is instituted occurs or when it ceases. In the case in hand,
considering the target date i.e. 31.01.2012, the plaintiff was required to file
suit within three years from the target date. However, the
appellants/defendants gave notice dated 02.02.2012 again calling upon the
plaintiff to come forward on 08.02.2012 to perform his part of agreement
to sell but the fact remains that there is concealment of material fact on the
part of appellants/defendants that their land was already under the master
plan, Rewari thus covered under R Zone, Green Belt and National
Highway. They cannot compel the respondent/plaintiff to purchase the
land with said rider. Under these circumstances, the appellants/defendants
cannot claim that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation, as
they are the wrong doers by concealing the aforesaid material fact.
However, in the plaint itself it is not specifically mentioned when the
respondent/plaintiff came to know about this fact. The facts of the case
indicate that till the target date i.e. 31.01.2012, the respondent/plaintiff was
ready and willing to perform his part of agreement as he got his presence
marked by way of affidavit Exhibit PW-2/B. Therefore, he came to know
about this condition subsequently and period of limitation will start from
the said contingency. The suit was filed on 10.02.2015. Under these
circumstances, it cannot be said that the suit filed by the
respondent/plaintiff is barred by limitation.
In view of my above discussion, I do not find any reason to
interfere in the concurrent finding of the Courts below vide which the suit
filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery has been decreed with
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164134
2023:PHHC:164134
RSA-1070-2023(O&M)
interest. The findings given by the Courts below are fully justified from
the evidence and the documents proved on record. With this observation,
the judgments passed by the Courts below are accordingly upheld and the
appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants is accordingly dismissed.
The records received from the two Courts below be sent back
to the concerned quarter.
Pending application(s) if any, also stands disposed of.
18.12.2023 (AMARJOT BHATTI)
Sunil Devi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164134
12 of 12
