Punjab-Haryana High Court

(O&M) Sher Singh vs Pannu Lal And Others on 11 March, 2024

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

                                                                                    2024:PHHC:033832
                            RSA-1702-1993 (O&M)                                                        -1-



                            147

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                   CHANDIGARH

                                                                         RSA-1702-1993 (O&M)
                                                                         Reserved on : 05.03.2024
                                                                         Date of Decision : 11.03.2024


                            Sher Singh (deceased) through LRs                               ....Appellant

                                                              VERSUS

                            Pannu Lal and Others                                          ....Respondents



                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN



                            Present :    Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for the appellant.

                                        Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the respondents.



                            ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant

challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.05.1993 passed by the First

Appellate Court.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

appellant herein - Sher Singh - filed a suit against Punnu Ram, Gurmeet

Singh and Gurbachan Singh (respondents herein) on the allegations that on

31.05.1984 defendant-respondent No.1 - Punnu Ram - entered into an

agreement to sell the suit land for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,000/-.

Rs.4,000/- was paid as earnest money and the possession was delivered to

the plaintiff-appellant. Rs.2,000/- was again paid on 01.12.1984 and the sale

integrity of this order/judgment.


                                                                                      2024:PHHC:033832
                            RSA-1702-1993 (O&M)                                                         -2-

deed was to be executed on 30.05.1986. It was further averred that the

plaintiff-appellant remained ready and willing to perform his part of the

contract, but the defendant-respondent No.1 started to negotiate to sell the

land elsewhere. When the plaintiff-appellant learnt about the intention of

defendant-respondent No.1, a suit for permanent injunction was filed for

restraining the defendants from alienating or transferring the suit land in any

manner. It was further averred that defendant-respondent No.2 - Gurmeet

Singh - in connivance with defendant-respondent No.1 filed a suit for

permanent injunction on the basis of some subsequent and afterthought

agreement to sell for restraining him from transferring the land in any

manner. When the plaintiff-appellant learnt about the pendency of the civil

suit, he filed an application on 25.02.1986 for being impleaded as a party.

Defendant-respondent No.1 gave a statement that he was ready to get the

sale deed executed and as a result of the same the suit was withdrawn by the

plaintiffs therein. It was further the case set up that the defendant-

respondents were all aware of the injunction granted by the Court in favour

of the plaintiff-appellant. It was further averred that the plaintiff-appellant

was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but

defendant-respondent No.1 got a sale deed executed on 04.03.1986 in favour

of defendant-respondent Nos.2 and 3 for a sale consideration of Rs.19,000/-.

The suit was contested by the defendant-respondents denying the agreement

to sell. In the replication the pleadings of the plaint were reiterated and

averments made in the written statement were denied.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues

were framed :

integrity of this order/judgment.


                                                                                         2024:PHHC:033832
                            RSA-1702-1993 (O&M)                                                       -3-

1. Whether defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit land

in favour of plaintiff vide agreement dated 31.5.1984

and received Rs.4,000/- as earnest money ? OPD

2. Whether the said agreement is the result of fraud

and misrepresentation ? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff always remained ready and

willing to perform his part of the contract ? OPP

4. Whether the suit has been filed within time ? OPP

5. Whether the sale deed dated 4.3.86 is inoperative

null and void and in effective qua the rights of the

plaintiff ? OPP

6. Relief.

4. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree

dated 28.11.1989. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the

defendant-respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the First Appellate Court which

appeal was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 06.05.1993. Hence, the

present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that

the First Appellate Court has erred in reversing the judgment and decree

passed by the Trial Court only on the ground that the date mentioned in the

agreement to sell is 29.05.1984 whereas the stamp-paper was purchased on

31.05.1984. The learned counsel would further contend that the same was a

mere typographical mistake which stood explained by the scribe by

producing his register (Ex.P5).

6. Per contra the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents

integrity of this order/judgment.


                                                                                       2024:PHHC:033832
                            RSA-1702-1993 (O&M)                                                         -4-

would contend that the date in the agreement is 29.05.1984, however, the

stamp-paper was purchased on 31.05.1984. It is further the contention of the

learned counsel that extract of the register (Ex.P5) is a standalone entry and

neither the previous nor the subsequent entries have been produced. It is

further the contention of the learned counsel that no evidence was produced

by the plaintiff-appellant to show that he was ready and willing with the

balance sale consideration.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. In the present case the agreement to sell is dated 29.05.1984,

however, the stamp-paper was purchased on 31.05.1984. The learned

counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has tried to explain the discrepancy and

has argued that the Deed Writer had explained the discrepancy and hence

nothing would turn on the date as mentioned in the agreement to sell and the

agreement to sell was executed only on 31.05.1984. A perusal of the

statement of PW6 Karam Singh, Deed Writer reveals that it is no where

being stated by the Deed Writer that the said date was written by mistake

and infact it has been stated in his cross-examination that the matter about

29.05.1984 did not come to his mind. Attesting Witness PW4 - Amar Nath -

has not explained the discrepancy in the date of the agreement and purchase

of stamp-paper. Ex.P5 is an extract of the Deed Writer's register with a

standalone entry and neither the previous nor the subsequent entries have

been produced on the record which could have possibly been a determining

factor. Further still, there is not an iota of evidence to show that the

plaintiff-appellant remained ready and willing with the balance

consideration. Only a bald statement has been made that the plaintiff-

integrity of this order/judgment.


                                                                                     2024:PHHC:033832
                            RSA-1702-1993 (O&M)                                                        -5-

appellant was always ready and willing. The Trial Court while decreeing the

suit had held that since a suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for

restraining the defendant-respondents from alienating and transferring the

land, hence filing of the suit showed that the plaintiff-appellant was always

ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On a pointed query by

the Court as to whether any evidence was led regarding availability of the

funds with the plaintiff-appellant to pay the balance consideration it has

candidly been admitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that

there is no evidence on the record.

9. In view of the above, I do not find any irregularity or infirmity

in the judgment and decree dated 06.05.1993 passed by the First Appellate

Court. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises