Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lal Singh vs Gurbachan Singh And Ors on 20 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040320
2024:PHHC:040320
147 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1931-1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.03.2024
Lal Singh
....Appellant
Versus
Gurbachan Singh and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. R.K.S.Brar, Advocate for the appellant
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
1. This is the plaintiff's Regular Second Appeal to assail the
correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the courts below.
2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present
case, some relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. The appellant (plaintiff before the trial court) filed the suit
for the specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22.08.1984
with respect to the land measuring 9 bighas on payment of the balance
sale consideration. The defendants contested the case on the ground that
defendant no.1 agreed to sell his 1/4th share in the agricultural land
measuring 9 bighas as he was owner to that extent. It was also alleged
that he is an illerate person and the plaintiff mischievously got recorded
the entire land measuring 9 bighas. The trial court, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, did not grant the relief of the specific
performance of the agreement to sell but awarded Rs.47,000/-. However,
the defendants filed the appeal. The First Appellate Court has reduced
the amount to Rs.28,200/-. It may be noted here that the plaintiff
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040320
RSA-1931-1992 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:040320
never filed any first appeal before the First Appellate Court. Thus, the
total dispute involved in the present appeal is approximately
Rs.18,800/-. This appeal is pending for the last 32 years.
4, Heard the learned counsel representing the appellant at
length and with his able assistance perused the paperbook.
5. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the
First Appellate Court has erred in reducing the amount as the trial court
had decreed the suit as per the terms stipulated in the agreement. He
submits that it was agreed that if the defendant no.1 failed to perform his
part of contract, he shall be liable to pay the amount equivalent to double
of the earnest money.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel representing the appellant.
7. By now, it is well settled that the amount equivalent to
double of the earnest money can be passed only if the plaintiff proves
damages to that extent. In the absence thereof, the plaintiff is only
entitled to refund of the earnest money. Such stipulation for payment of
the amount equivalent to double of the earnest money is a penal
provision and therefore, the plaintiff is required to prove the damages.
The First Appellate Court has already awarded Rs.28,200/- over and
above the refund of the earnest money.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere
is made out.
9. Hence, dismissed.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040320
RSA-1931-1992 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:040320
10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
20.03.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
