Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Kumar And Another vs Kartar Singh And Another on 9 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114168
RSA-2635-1994 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106
RSA-2635-1994
Date of decision: 09.05.2024
RAVINDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER ..Appellants
Versus
KARTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Tejinderbir Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. In this regular second appeal, the plaintiffs assail the correctness
of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while
granting alternative relief of refund of Rs.11,333.66/- along with interest in
place of the relief of possession by way of specific performance of the
agreement to sell.
2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. Sh. Kartar Singh was the owner of the land measuring 5 kanal
and 5 marlas located near Gandhas Nalah, denoted as Khasra No.1477 in the
Estate of Amritsar Urban Outside Bhagtanwala Gate, Amritsar. He entered
into an agreement to sell on 08.01.1992 in favour of Sh. Ravinder Kumar,
Sh. Sunil Kumar and Sh. Kanwaljit Singh on receipt of Rs.17,000/- out of
total sale consideration of Rs.1,28,625/-. As per the agreement to sell,
defendant No.1 was required to take permission from the competent
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114168
RSA-2635-1994 -2-
authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
(hereinafter referred to as the '1976 Act'). The sale deed was agreed to be
executed on or before 31.12.1982. Defendant No.2 namely Sh. Kanwaljit
Singh, one of the intended purchaser surrendered his rights while accepting
the amount from defendant Sh. Kartar Singh on 11.12.1985. On 24.12.1985,
two plaintiffs namely, Sh. Ravinder Kumar and Sh. Sunil Kumar have filed
the suit. The defendants admitted the agreement to sell, however, claims that
the agreements was cancelled and plaintiffs were never ready and willing to
perform their part of the contract. Defendant No.2 has already been refunded
the amount.
4. Upon appreciation of evidence, both the Courts below did not
consider it appropriate to grant the relief of specific performance while
granting substituted relief of refund of earnest money along with interest.
5. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook along
with requisitioned record.
6. The learned counsel representing the appellants contend that the
land was agricultural assessed to land revenue, hence, the permission under
the 1976 Act was not required. He further submits that in any case, the relief
of specific performance cannot be denied on account of failure on the part of
defendant No.1 to take necessary permission. He further submits that even if
permission is required that itself is not a bar to grant the relief of specific
performance.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
respondents submits that the plaintiffs were never ready and willing to
perform their part of the contract.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114168
RSA-2635-1994 -3-
8. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties and studied the judgments of the Courts
below.
9. It is important to note that as per the agreement to sell, the sale
deed was required to be executed on 31.12.1982. The suit was filed on
24.12.1985, i.e. three years after the agreed date for execution of the sale
deed. This Court has carefully read the plaint. There is absolutely no
explanation for the delay of three years. The relief of specific performance of
the agreement to sell was discretionary till the amendment in the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the '1963 Act'). This agreement
is of the year 1982. Once, there is a complete silence or inaction on the part
of the plaintiffs to take steps for enforcement of the contract particularly
when defendant No.2 has already received back his part of the earnest
money, the plaintiffs cannot be said to be always ready and willing as
required to be under Section 16 of the 1963 Act.
10. Moreover, now the plaintiffs want to prove that the land was an
agricultural land. In additional evidence, he sought to produce the copy of
jamabandi and khasra 'girdawari'. The copy of jamabandi only has
presumption of correctness, which is rebuttable. The property is located in
the urban area. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel representing the
appellant that the property is agricultural land cannot be accepted
particularly when he has not pleaded in his plaint that no permission under
the 1976 Act was required.
11. The plaintiffs have sought specific performance of 2/3rd share
of the land measuring 5 kanal and 5 marlas. In substance, they are claiming
specific performance of part of the land agreed to be sold.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114168
RSA-2635-1994 -4-
12. Now, period of approximately 42 years have elapsed, at this
stage, it would not appropriate to grant the relief of specific performance.
13. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no ground to interfere
is made out.
14. Dismissed accordingly.
15. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
May 09th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
