Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pishora Singh vs Darshan Singh on 19 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
102 2024:PHHC:039249
RSA-849-1994 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.03.2024
PASHORA SINGH ..Appellant
Versus
DARSHAN SINGH ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Ms. Manveen Pheruman, Advocate
for Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate
for respondent.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. In this regular second appeal, the plaintiff assails the correctness
of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while
refusing to grant relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell but
granted alternative relief of recovery of earnest money.
2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. Sh. Darshan Singh, a member of the Scheduled Caste
community purchased the suit property in a restricted auction held on
25.02.1976. There was a restriction for sale of the property for a period of 20
years in favour of the person of non Scheduled Caste. The plaintiff claims
that Sh. Darshan Singh entered into an agreement to sell on 26.10.1983 on
receipt of Rs.1,600/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.17,000/-. It was
agreed that the sale deed would be executed on 08.05.1987 i.e. after a period
of nearly three years and seven months from the date of agreement to sell.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039249
2024:PHHC:039249
RSA-849-1994 (O&M) -2-
The suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell was filed on
09.08.1988.
4. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence have refused to
grant relief of specific performance in exercise of their discretion on the
ground that the specific performance, if ordered, would result in violation of
rules, which should not be permitted.
5. This appeal was admitted for regular hearing in the year 1994,
which has come up for hearing after nearly 30 years.
6. Though, the learned counsel representing the appellant has
contended that the Courts below have made out a new case for defendant,
however, this Court has examined the judgments of the Courts below. It is
evident that defendant has specifically pleaded that he has purchased the
property from the government in auction. The overwhelming evidence was
brought on record to prove that auction was a restricted auction, which was
governed by Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. The
defendants examined Sh. Joginder Singh, official from the office of
Tehsildar Welfare, Ajnala and Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Kanungo, to prove that
fact. Moreover, both the Courts have exercised their discretion, which is not
proved to be arbitrary. Under the unamended Specific Relief Act, 1963, the
relief of specific performance was discretionary at the relevant time. Still
further, now, a period of 41 years from the date of execution of the
agreement to sell has elapsed.
7. Hence, at this stage, it is not considered appropriate to pass a
decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell.
8. Dismissed accordingly.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039249
2024:PHHC:039249
RSA-849-1994 (O&M) -3-
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 19th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
