Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Ram Murti And Ors vs Chand Singh on 29 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061063
RSA-715-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061063
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-715-1994 (O&M)
Reserved on: 16.04.2024
Date of decision: 29.04.2024
RAM MURTI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
..Appellants
Versus
CHAND SINGH
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Rahul Bansal, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Akhtar Husain Haji, Advocate
Ms. Khushi Suryavanshi, Advocate
Mr. Pradhuman Krishanan, Advocate
and Mr. Harinder, Advocate
for respondent.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Brief facts of the case:-
1.1 The defendants have filed this regular second appeal to
challenge the correctness of the judgments passed by the Courts below
while decreeing the plaintiff's suit for Specific performance of agreement to
sell dated 06.01.1986. In fact, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was
always ready and willing to perform his part of contract but he was granted
alternative relief of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on
the ground that the defendant No.3 is not proved to be owner of 13 kanal
and 4 marlas. However, an application filed for producing the additional
evidence before the First Appellate Court was allowed and while disposing
1 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061063
RSA-715-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061063
of appeal as well as cross-objections, the Appellate Court granted the decree
for specific performance of the agreement to sell.
1.2 This appeal was admitted for regular hearing and now it has
come up for final disposal.
1.3 In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
1.4 Smt. Ram Murti, Smt. Bimla Devi, and Sh. Ramesh Kumar
who are closely related to each other, were owners of land measuring 16
kanal. Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Smt. Ram Murti through her husband Sh. Madan
Lal and Smt. Bimla Devi through her husband Sh. Jagan Nath on receipt of
earnest money of Rs.25,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.91,500/-
executed the agreement to sell dated 06.01.1986 in favour of the plaintiff
Sh. Chand Singh. It was agreed that the sale deed would be executed on or
before 20.06.1986. The plaintiff sent a notice on 16.06.1986 to call upon the
defendants to come forward to execute the sale deed. On 20.06.1986, the
plaintiff attended the office of the Sub-Registrar and in token of his
presence, he got his attendance noted. On 03.09.1986, he filed the suit for
specific performance. Defendant No.1 and 2 did not contest the suit. Only
defendant No.3 contested the suit. He denied execution of the agreement to
sell and receipt of earnest money. It shall be noted here that defendant No.2
Smt. Bimla Devi is mother of defendant No.3 (Sh. Ramesh Kumar). The
husbands of Smt. Bimla devi and Smt. Ram Murti are sons of Sh. Shadi
Ram. In other words, all the defendants are from the family of Sh. Shadi
Ram.
2. Evidence produced by respective parties:-
2.1 In order to prove the case, the plaintiff himself appeared as
PW1, whereas, the marginal witness of the agreement to sell Sh. Jangir
2 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061063
RSA-715-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061063
Singh son of Sh. Bachan Singh appeared as PW-2. Sh. Baldev Singh son of
Sh. Puran Singh appeared as PW-3, whereas, Sh. Bhagwan Dass, the scribe
as PW-4 and Sh. Uttam Singh, Sub-Registrar as PW-5, Sh. Hardev Singh as
PW-6 and Sh. Varinder Bhushan Bathanagar, handwriting and fingerprint
expert as PW-7.
2.2 On the other hand, the defendant examined Sh. Kartar Singh,
Sh. Sanpuran Singh as DW 1, Sh. Satwant Puri, the handwriting and
fingerprint expert as DW 2. Defendant No.3 Ramesh appeared as his own
witness as DW-3. He also produced the power of attorney Ex.D-1 and report
of the handwriting and fingerprint expert Ex.D-2/A.
3. Reasons recorded by the trial Court:-
3.1 Upon appreciation of evidence, the trial Court held that the
agreement to sell between the parties is proved and the plaintiff was always
ready and willing to perform his part of contract. However, the trial Court
held that defendant No.3 Sh. Ramesh Kumar was not the owner of the entire
property agreed to be sold by him. Thus, the Court directed that instead of
specific performance, the plaintiff should be refunded Rs.25,000/- along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit
till it's realization.
4. Reasons recorded by the First Appellate Court:-
4.1 The plaintiff filed the first appeal, in which the defendants
namely Smt. Ram Murti and Smt. Bimla Devi and Sh. Ramesh Kaur filed
the cross-objections. Sh. Ramesh Kumar, defendant No.3 filed an
application for permission to lead additional evidence in order to produce
some other documents executed by him in favour of bank prior to the
alleged agreement and to get comparison of his signatures from an expert.
On being allowed, he produced a loan file sanctioned from the State Bank
3 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061063
RSA-715-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061063
of Patiala and examined DW-4 Sh. Ravel Singh who proved signatures of
Sh. Ramesh Kumar on mortgage deed Ex.D-2. DW-5 Dr. Atul Kumar
Singla, the handwriting and fingerprint expert was also examined. While
rebutting the additional evidence, the plaintiff examined Sh. Sardara Singh
Parmar, the handwriting and fingerprint expert. By a comprehensive
judgment, the First Appellate Court accepted the plaintiff's appeal, whereas,
dismissed the cross-objections filed by the defendants. The Court ordered
that the defendants shall get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff
within a period of one month on receipt of balance sale consideration. In
case the defendants fail to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff shall be
entitled to get it executed through the process of law.
4.2 Against judgment of the First Appellate Court, all the three
defendants filed regular second appeal, which was admitted for regular
hearing on 04.01.1995.
5. Important developments:-
5.1 At this stage, it is important to note that the appellants filed
CM-232-C-2020, asserting that the parties have entered into a settlement on
29.01.2019. A deed of settlement was also filed. Notice was issued to the
learned counsel representing the non-applicant/respondent. On 21.01.2020,
the learned counsel on instruction of the respondent who was present in
Court stated that no compromise has taken place between the parties.
Ultimately, the appellants withdrew the application. Thereafter, the case was
taken up on 13.02.2024, the written submissions filed by respondent No.1
(plaintiff) were taken on record. The application filed for fixing the date of
hearing was disposed of because the main case was already listed in the
motion list.
5.2 Thereafter, the case was taken up on 28.02.2024, and on the
4 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061063
RSA-715-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061063
written request of the appellant, the hearing was adjourned to 20.03.2024.
On 20.03.2024, once again, the hearing of the appeal was adjourned on the
request of the learned counsel representing the appellants to 10.04.2024.
Thereafter, the case was taken up on 10.04.2024, but an oral request for
adjournment was made by learned counsel representing the respondent, and
hearing was adjourned to 16.04.2024. In the meantime, the appellants filed
fresh application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') in order to produce the following
documents:-
i. Copy of DDR dated 20.02.2019, registered on the
complaint of Sh. Chand Singh-respondent;
ii. Copy of petition filed by Sh. Chand Singh on
25.03.2021, in the high Court for issuing the appropriate
directions to respondent No.2 and 3 namely the police
officials to take appropriate legal action on DDR No.13
dated 20.10.2019;
iii. Copy of order dated 24.11.2021;
iv. The alleged compromise deed dated 20.10.2019;
v. Affidavits of the witnesses; and
vi. Copy of FIR dated 16.02.2020.
5.3 Keeping in view the past experience, this Court preferred to
orally call upon the respondent to admit or deny the alleged deed of
settlement dated 21.10.2019, particularly when it was filed by way of
additional evidence only in April, 2024. The learned counsel representing
the respondent denied any settlement.
5 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061063
RSA-715-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061063
6. Arguments put forth by the learned counsel representing
the parties:-
6.1 The arguments of learned counsel representing the parties were
heard. The written submissions filed by the respondents were already the
part of the record, whereas, the learned Senior counsel representing the
appellant has filed written note of his submissions.
6.2 Apart from the synopsis, the learned Senior counsel
representing appellants has filed a written note of his submissions, which
reads as under:-
COMPLETE NOVATION OF CONTRACT DURING
PENDENCY OF PRESENT RSA BY THE
PLAINTIFF, THEREBY DISENTITLING HIM
FROM ANY RELIEF IN VIEW OF SECTION 62
OF CONTRACT ACT RESD WITH SECTION 20 OF
THE S.R
ACT.
CM-232-C- That one application was filed by the
2020 IN RSA- Applicant/Appellant for fixing the
715-1994 actual date of hearing in view of
compromise affected between the
parties.
In which the counsel for the
respondent has not acknowledged the
factum of the compromise and the
said application was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 21-01-
2020.
21.10.2019 That two Compromise Deed were
Annexure A-1 executed between substituted
in CM-3720 of Appellant and Respondent/ plaintiff
2024 in which both the parties have
entered into fresh Agreement, signed
by both the parties and attested by 8
witnesses/ Panchayat members.
After referring to pendency of present
RSA and agreement of 1986,
Appellant paid Rs.21lacs to plaintiff,
plaintiff was to make statement
before the court acknowledging
Annexure A-5 ownership of Mohan Kumar and his
brother Vijay Kumar on behalf of
Annexure A-6 Ram Murti, Bimla Devi and Ramesh
FIR 0016 Kumar,
6 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061063
RSA-715-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061063
dated-16-02- 5 affidavits of the member panchayat
2020 are annexure A-5, from where it can
be found that Chand Singh has taken
Rs.7 lacs out of Rs.21 lacs, while the
remaining amount remained with the
panchayat, however later Chand
Singh did not made the said
statement before the High Court. And
that the sarpanch got an FIR register
against said Chand Singh.
¾ The fresh agreement
needs to be enforced now as
substituted appellant have only
got back Rs.14 lacs out of Rs.
21lacs paid by them.
20-10-2019 DDR lodged by Chand Singh
DDR Annex A-1 appellant/plaintiff against Mohan
CM-3720 of Kumar (Subsequent Vendee)
24-11-2021 Petition filed by the Chand Singh
Annexure A-2 appellant/plaintiff against Mohan
& A-3 Kumar s/o Jagan Nath and Vijay
CRM-M- Kumar s/o Jagan Nath (Subsequent
14544-2020 Vendee) for initiating criminal
CM-3720 of proceedings against said subsequent
2024 vendees
Hon'ble HC noticed from
investigation that Chand Singh Has
changed the date in the agreement
and the matter is pending fot the last
30-35 years before this Hon'ble
Court and that a false story was put
up by Chand Singh through a self
inflicted injury, accordingly held
that no further action called for.
CM-3720 of That application has been filed by the
2024 in RSA- applicant/appellant for bringing on
715-1994 record subsequent events which
happened in the year 2019. Which is
still pending before the Hon'ble
bench for kind consideration. In
which the applicant/appellant has
placed on record above documents.
On the basis of above, the appeal
deserved to be allow keeping in view
Section 62 of the Contract Act.
And 2018 (1) PLR 250.
Two more legal proposition required to be considered;
7 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061063
RSA-715-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061063
A) Whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances now
relief of specific performance can be and should be
granted in favor of plaintiff after lapse of 38 years?
When concededly prices of real estate has spiraled
multiple times. The plaintiff have only deposited sum of
Rs. 25,000 alleged by him, whereas he has been enjoying
Rs. 7lacs of the appellants since 2019. (2015)14 SCC
B) Whether plaintiff throughout had been ready and
willing to perform his part of contract?
The plaintiff has not deposited balance sale
consideration within one month of the passing of the
impugned judgment and decree of the Ld. ADJ dated 28-
01-1994. Delivery of notice has not been proved.
Tempering of the agreement to sell is admitted, therefore
no relief should be granted.(2019) 9 SCC 381"
6.3 On the other hand, the written submissions filed by the learned
counsel representing the respondent reads as under:-
"11. That the ill conduct of the appellants-defendants
may be ascertained from the fact that although the lower
appellate court has granted decree of specific
performance in favour of applicant-respondent Chand
Singh and execution of judgment and decree has been
stayed by this Hon'ble court but in order to defeat the
right of applicant-respondent Chand Singh, the
Appellant No. 1 and 2 through their GPA, has alienated
the suit property vide sale deed dated 28.12.2009 in
favour of Mohan Kumar son of Jagan Nath for a total
sale consideration of Rs. 1,70,000/-. Even the appellant
No.3- Ramesh Kumar through his GPA Jagan Nath has
alienated the suit property in favour of Vijay Kumar and
MohanKumar sons of Jagan Nath vide sale deed dated
28.12.2009 for a total sale consideration of Rs.
8,25,000/-. Once the matter is already sub-judice before
this Hon'ble court a decree of specific performance is in
force in favour of applicant-respondent Chand Singh,
then the appellants were not competent to alienate the
suit land.
12. That virtually, the appellants have tried to mislead
the court below as well as by this Hon'ble court on the
premise that the agreement to sell is forged and fictitious
document to garb property in connivance with the
marginal witnesses. It is respectfully submitted that
Murit and Bimla Devi (Appellants No. 1 and 2) did not
appear to contest the suit meaning thereby they have
admitted the claim of plaintiff-respondent. It is not case
their that they had no information or notice of the suit
rather they intentionally choose not to contest the suit.
This polea is fortified from the fact that attorneys of Ram
8 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061063
RSA-715-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061063
Murti and Bimla Devi namely Madan Lal and Jagan
Nath through their husbands did appear in the court and
produced the Original Power of attorney in their favour
without contesting the suit. Now it does not lie in their
mouth to say, that the agreement to sell, so far as they
are concerned, is forged and fictitious. Their non
appearance despite notice of the suit certainly amounts
to admission of execution on their part.
13. That further more, Madan Lal and Jagan Nath had
signed the agreement to sell on behalf of these
appellants-defendants. They while producing the power
of attorneys, in their favour, did not deny the execution.
Still, the statement of scribe attesting witness and the
plaintiff-respondent regarding the execution of the
agreement which further belies the stand of appellants.
Neither Madan Lal nor Jagan Nath or Ramesh Kumar
has taken the plea of fraud having been played with them
in the matter of the execution of the agreement With
them. Madan Lal and Jagan Nath have rather not denied
the execution. Jagan Nath is none else, but the father of
Ramesh Kumar. So, only the short point is as to whether
signatures purporting to be as Ramesh Kumar are that of
defendant Ramesh Kumar or not. In this regard, two
hand writing experts have been examined by the
plaintiff-respondent, who say that their comparison
showed the disputed signatures to be comparing with the
other signatures of Ramesh Kumar, whereas the two
handwriting experts produced by the appellants-
defendants say otherwise. Thus in a way the expert
opinion of the handwriting experts examined by the
plaintiff-respondent has been negatived by the other
experts. Thus, without further going into the details of
the reports by the experts, the attesting witnesses and the
scribe have in unequivocal terms, stated that the
agreement executed by Jagan Nath, Madan Lal and
Ramesh Kumar in their presence and they had put the
signatures. However, it is alleged by appellant No.3 that
onthe agreement to sell Ex.Pl appellant No.3 has not
been correctly spelled showing that these were not the
signatures appended by him. It is stated that in the word
Ramesh 'e' after word 'm' is missing and similarly in
Kumar word 'a' after 'm' is not appearing which,
according to learned counsel for the appellants-
defendant, is enough to dis prove the signatures. No
doubt, these words are missing, but the other words are
comparable. Moreover attesting witness Baldev Singh is
admittedly of the village of the executant and he knew
personally to all of them. He has stated that they signed
in presence. Similarly, Jangir Singh who is the scribe of
the document and who belongs to the same place also
knew the executants and is very unequivocal is stating
that it was Ramesh Kumar who had put his signatures
under the agreement. Thus in the circumstances when
9 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061063
RSA-715-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061063
Jagan Nath one of the executant is the father of Ramesh
Kumar and has not appeared to contest the execution,
similarly Madan Lal who is brother of Jagan Nath and
uncle of Ashok Kumar too has not stepped in the witness
box to deny the execution, to say that the signatures to
Ramesh Kumar are forged due to absence word 'a' and 'e
in his signatures would mean dis-believing the ocular
reliable evidence. The case of plaintiff-respondent is
fully proved by the scribe and the attesting witness.
14. That it is fully proved on record and rightly held by
the court below that the plaintiff-respondent has always
been ready and willing to perform his part of the
agreement."
7. Discussion by this Court:-
7.1 This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook along
with the written submissions filed by them along with the requisitioned trial
Court as well as First Appellate Court record.
7.2 First and foremost, the application filed by the appellant for
permission to lead additional evidence is required to be considered. In this
application, the first document that the appellant wishes to produce is a
copy of the Daily Diary Report No.13 dated 20.10.2019, recorded on the
statement of Sh. Chand Singh-plaintiff (respondent) complaining that Sh.
Mohan Kumar @ Mana, Sh. Vijay Kumar have inflicted him various
injuries. Sh. Chand Singh was admitted in the hospital where treatment is
going on. The second document is a copy of memo of parties and the first
page containing the caption of the petition filed by Sh. Chand Singh seeking
direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police and Station House Officer
to take appropriate legal action on DDR No.13 of 20.10.2019. Annexure P-3
is the order passed by the High Court on 24.11.2021, in the aforesaid
petition. The Court held that in view of the reply filed by the State, no
further action is called for while giving liberty to the petitioner to file
complaint before the Illaqa Magistrate. Annexure A-4 is the alleged deed of
10 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061063
RSA-715-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061063
compromise dated 21.10.2019, wherein, it has been recorded that the
compromise has been arrived at between Sh. Mohan Kumar and Sh. Chand
Singh. It has been stated that the Panchayat has made a compromise
between both the parties and the parties have settled in view of a separate
agreement, according to which the disputed land has been given to the
appellants. There is another deed of settlement between Sh. Mohan Kumar
and Sh. Chand Singh, in which it has been recorded that Sh. Chand Singh
have been given Rs.21,00,000/- by the first party, namely Sh. Mohan
Kumar, and Sh. Chand Singh will suffer a statement in the High Court
admitting the appellants claim. These two deeds of settlements are alleged
to have been thumb marked by Sh. Chand Singh, however, he disputes this
fact. No application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC has been filed by
the appellant for disposal of the appeal in terms of compromise. Moreover,
the deed of settlement is stated to have been signed on 21.10.2019, whereas,
the application was filed in April, 2024, for permission to lead additional
evidence. In between, Sh. Chand Singh filed a petition in the High Court for
taking action against the appellants for the injuries caused to him. The
appellants have also filed the copies of five affidavits of the witnesses to the
deed of settlement stating that on 21.10.2019, a settlement took place
between the parties. Annexure A-6 is a copy of FIR No.16 dated
16.02.2020, registered on the complaint of Sh. Rajinder Singh, Sarpanch,
alleging that Sh. Chand Singh has taken away Rs.7,00,000/- out of
Rs.21,00,000/-, the amount of compromise and he has failed to return the
same, and therefore, he has committed cheating. Further developments in
the FIR have not been disclosed.
7.3 Keeping in view the aforesaid situation, this Court is the view
that the disposal in terms of the settlement dated 21.10.2019 is not
11 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061063
RSA-715-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061063
appropriate, particularly when the respondent Sh. Chand Singh, denies its
execution. Under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, the Court is entitled to
dispose of the appeal in terms of settlement if it is proved to the satisfaction
of Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful
agreement or compromise. Proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC lays
down that where it is alleged by one party that they will compromise but
denied by other, the Court shall decide the question, but no adjournment
shall be granted for the purpose of deciding such question. In fact, no
application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC has been filed. If the
Court adopts the path of holding a detailed inquiry into the validity and
genuineness of the alleged settlement, this appeal which is pending for the
last 30 years will have to be kept pending. The parties will have to be given
opportunity to prove that there was a subsequent agreement between the
parties on 21.10.2019. If there is a subsequent agreement between the
parties, though denied by the plaintiff, the appellants shall have liberty to
enforce the same by proving that the agreement was arrived at between the
parties voluntarily and without any pressure.
7.4 With reference to the first submission of the learned Senior
counsel representing the appellants that Section 62 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872, that cannot be invoked particularly when respondent denies the
execution of the subsequent agreement dated 29.11.2019, filed with CM-
232-C-2020 as well as the alleged compromise dated 21.10.2019, which
was filed in April, 2024.
7.5 In two legal propositions appended at the end of his note, the
learned Senior counsel representing the plaintiff submits as under:-
"The first submission is with regard to the discretionary
relief. It may be noted here that both the Courts have
12 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061063
RSA-715-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061063
concurrently held that the plaintiff was always ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract. The First
Appellate Court while accepting the first appeal passed
decree in favour of the plaintiff on 28.01.1994.
Thereafter, the matter is pending in appeal at the behest
of the defendants."
7.6 In this case, this Court is not for the first time called upon to
pass a decree for specific performance. In fact, the decree has already been
passed. This Court is only called upon to opine about its correctness. Hence,
the first legal proposition does not apply to the facts of the present case.
7.7 The learned Senior counsel representing the appellant has
relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Ravi Setia versus
Madan Lal and others (2019) 9 SCC 381. On a careful reading of the
judgment, it is evident that the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal
against the judgment passed by the High Court. Originally, the trial Court
decreed the suit, which was upheld in appeal by the First Appellate Court.
However, the High Court reversed the judgment of both the Courts below.
The Court held that despite a decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff
failed to comply with the same. In that case, the plaintiff filed an application
before the trial Court for extending the time for deposit of the amount on
account of pendency of the appeal, which was allowed. In those peculiar
facts, the Supreme Court held that conduct of the parties subsequent to the
passing of decree is also required to be examined. In this case, the plaintiff
cannot be deprived of the benefit of decree because the First Appellate
Court while accepting the appeal directed the defendant to execute the sale
deed within a period of one month (on receipt of remaining sale
consideration). The Court did not fix any time or period if the defendants
13 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061063
RSA-715-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061063
failed to comply with the same. It was only observed that the plaintiff shall
be entitled to get it executed through the process of law. The defendants
filed the second appeal in which interim order was granted in their favour
on 04.03.1994. Hence, in absence of the complete appropriate
material/books of account, it is not appropriate to conclude that the plaintiff
was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract after the judgment
passed by the First Appellate Court. However, the appellant shall have
liberty to take up this objection while opposing the execution petition or
application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter
referred to as the '1963 Act').
7.8 The second legal proposition is also covered by the first
submission. Hence, no further deliberations are required.
7.9 In the oral submissions, the learned counsel representing the
appellant has submitted as under:-
i. The agreement to sell has been tampered with and
therefore, the specific performance should not be
ordered.
ii. In the agreement to sell, there is no specific stipulation
that the failure on the part of defendants to honour the
agreement would entitle the plaintiff to file a suit for
specific performance. It is submitted that in absence of
such contract, suit for specific performance is not
maintainable.
iii. The plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendants
received notice dated 16.06.1986.
7.10 This Court has considered the submission of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
14 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061063
RSA-715-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061063
7.11 Ex.P-1 is the agreement to sell. It has been scribed on a non-
judicial stamp paper of Rs.5/-, which was purchased from a stamp vendor
for the execution of the agreement to sell. There is no interpolation and over
writing in the agreement to sell except there is over writing with respect to
the date on which the sale deed was to be executed, it has been alleged by
the defendants that originally it was 20.05.1986, which was subsequently
change to 20.06.1986 by converting '5' into '6'. Even if it is so, that would
not invalidate the agreement. The plaintiff has not gained any benefit from
this alleged interpolation. While filing the written statement, defendant No.3
has contended that there have been material alterations in the agreement to
sell, however, he failed to prove the same.
7.12 There is no substance in the argument of the learned Senior
counsel, particularly when the suit was filed on 03.09.1986 and before filing
the suit, the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendants on 16.06.1986, calling
upon them to reach the office on 20.06.1986.
7.13 The second argument of the learned Senior counsel lacks
substance because the agreement to sell with respect to the immovable
property is specifically enforceable under the '1963 Act' and specific recital
that the intended purchaser shall be entitled to file a suit for specific
performance is not necessary. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs Vs. Hartar
Singh Sangha, 2010(10) SCC 512.
7.14 The last submission of the learned counsel is with regard to
denial of the receipt of notice dated 16.06.1986. It may be noted that before
the Courts below, there was no specific issue with regard to the non-receipt
of the notice. In any case, it is not mandatory for the plaintiff to serve notice
before filing the suit. In the agreement to sell, there was specific stipulation
15 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061063
RSA-715-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061063
that the sale deed was to be executed on 20.06.1996. Hence, it was not
necessary for the plaintiff to send a notice. Moreover, it is not the case of
defendant that they were prepared to execute the sale deed on 20.05.1986,
and they visited the office of Registrar but the plaintiff did not come. Hence,
the argument has no substance.
7.15 It is significant to note that during the pendency of the appeal,
an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was filed to implead the
subsequent vendees as the parties, which was ordered to be heard with the
main case. The subsequent vendees are the family members of the
defendants. They are represented by the same counsel, who has been heard.
8. Decision:-
8.1 Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the appeal is dismissed.
However, it shall be open to the defendant to file a separate suit for
enforcing the alleged settlements dated 20.10.2019 and 29.11.2019 and file
application under Section 28 of the 1963 Act in the trial Court.
8.2 All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
April 29th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
16 of 16
