Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramjan vs Rajak & Ors on 3 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084403
CM-577 & 578-C-2023 in/and
RSA-5095-2014 (O&M) --1--
238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CM-577& 578 C-2023 in/and
RSA-5095-2014 (O&M)
Decided on:-03.07.2024
Ramjan (since deceased) through his LRs. ....Appellant(s)..
vs.
Rajjak and others ....Respondents..
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Shaifuddin Shams, Advocate
for the appellant(s).
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate,
for the respondents.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)
CM-577-C-2023
Application for grant of leave is allowed as prayed for.
CM-578-C-2023
Prayer in this application is for early hearing of the main
appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
consent, application is allowed and present appeal is taken up on board for
final hearing today itself.
Main case
By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the
judgment and decree dated 23.07.2014 passed by the First Appellate Court,
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084403
CM-577 & 578-C-2023 in/and
RSA-5095-2014 (O&M) --2--
whereby judgment and decree dated 29.11.2013 passed by learned
Additional Civil Judge, Nuh was modified and a decree for specific
performance granted in favour of appellant-plaintiff was converted into that
for a refund of sale consideration with interest @ 6% per annum.
2. Briefly stating, based on an agreement to sell dated
18.07.2007, appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific
performance qua 9 kanals 12 marlas of land situated in the revenue estate of
village Kehri Kankar, Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat against the respondents-
defendants while submitting that the entire sale consideration amount of
Rs.1,40,000/- was paid to them on the date of execution of the agreement
itself. It was further pleaded that no date for execution or registration of sale
deed was fixed between the parties whereas the possession was delivered in
favour of appellant-plaintiff. Further it was pleaded that the appellant-
plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract for getting the sale deed executed and registered in his favour,
having already paid the entire sale consideration. It was also pleaded that
since the respondents-defendants were denying the agreement to sell
executed between the parties, hence the suit for possession by way of
specific performance as well as permanent injunction was filed.
3. In response, a detailed written statement was filed from the
side of respondents-defendants, wherein the execution of any such
agreement as pleaded by the appellant-plaintiff was denied besides even
disputing the payment of Rs.1,40,000/- in their favour. It was pleaded that
thumb impressions of respondents-defendants were obtained by playing
fraud resulting into fabrication of the alleged agreement to sell. Further,
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084403
CM-577 & 578-C-2023 in/and
RSA-5095-2014 (O&M) --3--
readiness and willingness on the part of appellant-plaintiff was also
denied/disputed. It was also pleaded that the land in question already stood
acquired by HSIIDC vide notification dated 31.03.2008 issued under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by an award dated
31.05.2010, in such, circumstances, no relief could be granted in favour of
appellant-plaintiff.
4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2013
partly decreed the suit in favour of appellant-plaintiff while directing the
respondents-defendants to execute the sale deed in his favour though the
relief qua possession was declined, the same being with the government
authorities in the wake of suit land been acquired.
5. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2013
passed by the trial Court, the respondents-defendants filed first appeal which
came to be decided vide judgment and decree dated 23.07.2014 passed by
the Court of Additional District Judge, Mewat while modifying the same and
converting it into that for refund of sale consideration amount of
Rs.1,40,000/- in favour of the appellant-plaintiff along with interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of execution of agreement to sell dated 18.07.2007
till its realization.
6. Having argued for some time, learned counsel representing
both the sides being conscious of the factum of acquisition of land in
question by the HSIIDC vide notification dated 31.03.2008 issued under
Section 4 of the Land Acquistion Act, 1894, followed by an award dated
31.05.2010 and the consequential vesting thereof with the Government
authorities, agreed not to agitate the issue any further and gave consent that
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084403
CM-577 & 578-C-2023 in/and
RSA-5095-2014 (O&M) --4--
the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2014 passed by the first Appellate
Court be upheld and the present appeal be disposed of, however, keeping
open their rights qua enhanced compensation being the subject matter of
RFA-10566-2014 to be adjudicated upon later without being influenced by
the consent order passed in the present appeal.
7. In such, circumstances, the present appeal is being disposed of
in the aforesaid manner on the basis of consented stand taken by the parties
through their respective counsels.
8. As per learned counsel for the respondents-defendants the
decreetal amount as awarded in the judgment & decree dated 23.07.2014,
passed by the First Appellate Court already stands deposited with the
Executing Court on 03.09.2014. The same be immediately transmitted in
favour of legal heirs of the appellant-plaintiff (decree-holders) by the
executing Court, upon due verification.
9. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
03.07.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
4 of 4
