Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Avtar Singh vs Mohinderpal Singh Etc on 2 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044161
RSA-112-1994(O&M) 2024:PHHC:044161
1
101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-112-1994(O&M)
Date of decision :02.04.2024
Avtar Singh ...Appellant
Vs.
Mohinderpal Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Amanpriye Jain, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate with
Mr. Sanchit Malik, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)
1. Brief Facts of the case:-
1.1 In this regular second appeal, the defendant No.1 assails the
correctness of the concurrent findings of the fact arrived at by the Courts below
while decreeing the plaintiff's suit for possession by way of specific
performance of the agreement to sell.
1.2 In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,
relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.
1.3 Sh. Avtar Singh, the appellant was owner of 25 kanals 6 marlas
land. He entered into an agreement to sell on 23.11.1984, in favour of the
plaintiff (respondent herein) on receipt of earnest money of Rs. 30,000/-. The
land measuring 25 kanals and 6 marlas was agreed to be sold @ Rs.25,000/-
per acre (8 kanals). As per agreement to sell, the sale deed was to be executed
on or before 10.06.1986. The plaintiff visited the office of the Sub Registrar on
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044161
RSA-112-1994(O&M) 2024:PHHC:044161
05.06.1986 and 10.06.1986 and got his affidavit attested, however, the
defendant did not come before the office of the Registrar. The plaintiff also
sent a notice to the defendants on 27.05.1986. The suit property was already
mortgaged with the defendants No. 2 to 4 against a sum of Rs, 25,000/-. The
defendant while contesting the suit stated that the plaintiff is a commission
agent and the defendant used to sell his crops through the plaintiff and he may
have obtained his thumb impression by playing fraud as he is uneducated.
1.4 Upon appreciation of evidence, both the Courts have decreed the
suit.
2. Arguments put forth by the learned counsel representing the
parties:-
2.1 Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and
with their able assistance perused the paper-book alongwith the requisitioned
record of the lower Courts.
2.2 Learned counsel representing the appellant has made the following
submissions:-
1. The plaintiff is not proved to be ready and willing as there
was a gap of 1 year and 7 months between the date of
execution of the agreement to sell and the date fixed for
execution of the sale deed.
2. The plaintiff has not produced any evidence to prove that he
was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
3. The plaintiff is a commission agent and therefore, the suit
should not have been decreed.
4. The amount of sale consideration is inadequate.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044161
RSA-112-1994(O&M) 2024:PHHC:044161
5. The plaintiff was not possessed of sufficient means to
honour the agreement to sell and he relies upon the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in "U.N.
Krishnamurthy (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Vs. A.M.
Krishnamurthy", 2022(3) RCR(Civil) 479.
2.3 Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent has drawn
the attention of the Court to agreement to sell (Ex. P.4), the cross-examination
of the defendant therein. He admits his signatures on the agreement to sell as
well as stamp papers purchased by him and the register of the deed writer. He
further submits that when the plaintiff appeared in evidence, the defendant's
counsel never suggested that the plaintiff was not ready and willing or he was
not possessed of sufficient means to honour the agreement to sell.
3. Discussion by this Court:-
3.1 This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties.
3.2 The crucial document in the present case is agreement to sell dated
23.11.1984, which is exhibited as P-4 in the trial Court's record. It is evident
that it has been scribed on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 2.25. It runs into
two pages. On 23.11.1984, the plaintiff purchased the stamp paper from the
stamp vendor for execution of the agreement to sell. He has appended his
signatures on the endorsement made by the stamp vendor in the agreement to
sell. The defendant has also appended his signatures on both the pages of the
agreement to sell. He has also appended his signatures in the register of the
scribe, where there is entry of agreement to sell between the plaintiff and the
defendant. Moreover, on the one hand, the defendant has stated in the written
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044161
RSA-112-1994(O&M) 2024:PHHC:044161
statement that the plaintiff may have obtained his thumb impression by playing
fraud, however, while appearing as witness, he admits his signatures on the
agreement to sell. It shall be noted here that on the first page of the agreement
to sell, the defendant has signed on the left hand margin, whereas, on the
second page, he has signed where the recitals of the agreement to sell come to
an end. It is evident that the stamp paper was purchased on 23.11.1984, when
the agreement to sell was executed. Thus, the appellant's defence is incorrect.
Moreover, the plaintiff while filing the suit has claimed that he was always
ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The suit was filed within a
period of one and half month from the date the sale deed was to be executed.
The plaintiff appeared in evidence and stated that he was ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract and he had sufficient means to pay the
remaining part of the sale consideration. The correctness of the aforesaid
statement was not challenged by the defendant's counsel while cross-
examining the plaintiff.
3.3 The defendant has also failed to prove that he used to sell his crops
through the plaintiff. There is no suggestion to the plaintiff in this regard. The
plaintiff has stated that he owns a parcel of land, which adjoins the defendant's
land.
3.4 Moreover, upon appreciation of evidence the concurrent findings
of fact have been arrived at. The plaintiff has produced overwhelming evidence
in support of his case and has also examined the stamp vendor and the scribe.
3.5 It is also proved that the defendant went to the Patwari and got
issued certified copy of jamabandi of the land in question. This Court has
carefully read U.N. Krishnamurthy's case (Supra). In that case, the Supreme
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044161
RSA-112-1994(O&M) 2024:PHHC:044161
Court has emphasized the requirement of plaintiff to prove that he was always
ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as provided under Section
16(c) of Specific Relief Act. As per the facts and evidence on record, the
aforesaid requirements stand fulfilled.
4. Decision:-
4.1 Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no ground to interfere is
made out.
4.2 Dismissed.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
02.04.2024 JUDGE
neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
5 of 5
