Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subrati vs Shanti Devi & Ors on 22 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044281
RSA No.2376 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2376 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Order:22.03.2024
Subrati
.Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shanti Dvi and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms. Malkit Kaur, Advocate
for respondent no.4.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. This is the plaintiff's regular second appeal against the first
appellate court's judgment and decree while granting her alternative relief of
refund of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date
of alleged execution of the agreement to sell till its realization in a suit filed
by him for specific performance of the agreement to sell.
2. On 14.02.2006, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance
of the agreement to sell dated 02.09.2004. He claimed that on receipt of
Rs.1,50,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-, Smt. Shanti
Devi (defendant no.1) agreed to sell land measuring 25 kanals and 13
marlas. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 20.03.2005, however,
with mutual consent and on payment of additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/-,
the date was extended to 20.03.2006, i.e. for a period of one year from
20.03.2005. In the meantime, defendant no.1 executed two sale deeds, one
in favour of defendant no.3 on 26.04.2005, whereas second in favour of
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044281
defendant no.4, on 18.01.2006.
3. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, however, the First
Appellate Court modified the decree and granted relief of refund of the
amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest. The correctness of the aforesaid
judgment is challenged by the plaintiff in this appeal.
4. The learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the
execution of the agreement to sell is proved and the plaintiff has paid
amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and he is in possession of the same. He submits
that the court has erred in granting alternative relief as the plaintiff was
entitled to relief of specific performance.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing defendant no.4 has
submitted that the discretion exercised by the First Appellate Court requires
no interference. She submits that respondent no.4 is a bonafide purchaser
for valuable consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- and she is not related to
defendant no.1.
6. This court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
7. It is evident that on the facts of the case, the First Appellate
Court has formed an opinion that the appellant is not entitled to relief of
specific performance on the following grounds:-
(1) The court has held that the transaction between plaintiff
and defendant no.1 was in fact a loan transaction as
claimed by defendant no.1
(2) Respondent nos.3 and 4 are bonafide purchasers. The
court has also observed that there are various cutting and
interpolations in the agreement to sell which makes
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044281
agreement to sell doubtful. It has also been observed that
vide endorsement dated 20.03.2005, the period was
extended and there is recital of delivery of possession,
however, the same is doubtful.
8. The discretion exercised by the First Appellate Court does not
suffer from any substantive error.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground
to interfere is made out.
10. Dismissed.
11. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 22, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
3 of 3
