Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Singh vs Mohinder Pal Singh Narula And Anr on 2 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044229
2024:PHHC:044229
RSA-4769-2018 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.105
Case No. : RSA-4769-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision : April 02, 2024
Ajit Singh .... Appellant
vs.
Mohinder Pal Singh Narula and another .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate
for the appellant.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. CM-12895-C-2018 : For the reasons mentioned in the application,
the same is allowed and delay of 11 days in re-filing the present appeal is
hereby condoned. The application stands disposed of.
2. Main Appeal : The instant appeal has been filed against the
concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby suit filed by the
plaintiff/appellant has been dismissed.
3. The brief facts, necessary for proper adjudication of the present
appeal, are that the plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred to as - the
plaintiff) filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing defendant/
respondent no.1 (for short - defendant no.1) to get the sale deed executed
and registered in his favour from defendant no.2 - Ludhiana Improvement
Trust, pertaining to property i.e. Plot No.800-F, situated at Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. Further relief sought by the plaintiff was with
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044229
2024:PHHC:044229
RSA-4769-2018 (O&M)
regard to possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell
dated 09.09.2006 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of plaintiff or in the
alternative, suit for recovery of Rs.10 lacs as liquidated damages and also for
permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1 himself, his attorney,
representatives etc. from selling, alienating or transferring in any manner the
suit property or any part thereof in favour of any other person except the
plaintiff.
4. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record,
dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned Lower Appellate Court
affirmed the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court.
5. The case of the plaintiff is based upon an agreement to sell dated
09.09.2006. Actually, defendant no.1 was allotted the suit property. He just
deposited Rs.8,000/- with defendant no.2 Improvement Trust and thereafter,
the allotment was cancelled. Since defendant no.1 had not become the
owner of the suit property, so, he had no right to execute the sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff. The averments of the aforesaid agreement are very
clear and defendant no.1 did not conceal any fact from the plaintiff. It is
mentioned that he had only paid sum of Rs.8,000/- with the Improvement
Trust as earnest money and did not deposit any other amount. The
Improvement Trust had cancelled the allotment. It is further stipulated in the
agreement that all formalities regarding transfer of plot from defendant no.2
Improvement Trust would be done by the plaintiff by 06.10.2006 and the
same would be sole responsibility of the plaintiff. It was further agreed
between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 that whether the allotment of plot in
question is restored or not restored, the sole responsibility for the said
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044229
2024:PHHC:044229
RSA-4769-2018 (O&M)
restoration would be of the plaintiff and he would pay the remaining balance
amount to defendant no.1 and under no circumstances, the amount received
by defendant no.1 as earnest money, would be refunded to the plaintiff and
that the entire responsibility for said restoration being of the plaintiff,
defendant no.1 would not share any such responsibility.
6. The target date was mentioned as 06.10.2006. Since entire
responsibility was of the plaintiff to get the plot restored but the plaintiff did
not take any step for restoration of the plot. As per agreement, plaintiff failed
to take any step. Plaintiff was fully aware that defendant No.1 was not the
owner of the suit property at the time of execution of agreement to sell. A
person cannot sell better title than he himself has in the property. Since
defendant no.1 was not the owner of the plot in question so he cannot be
asked to execute a sale deed of such a property, which is not owned by him.
7. There is nothing on record to show that the findings recorded by
both the courts below suffer from any infirmity, illegality, perversity or are
based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence on record. No question
of law, much less substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal,
which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
April 02, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika/renu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
3 of 3
