Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kundan Singh vs Sant Kaur on 6 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062008
RSA No.2268 of 1994 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2268 of 1994 (O&M)
Date of Order:06.05.2024
Kundan Singh
.Appellant
Versus
Sant Kaur (since deceased) through LRs ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate
Mr. Pankaj Samania, Advocate
for the respondent.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. This is the plaintiff's regular second appeal against the
judgment passed by the First Appellate Court which in turn has modified
the judgment of the trial Court.
2. The plaintiff is son-in-law of the defendant (respondent). He
filed a suit on 05.10.1989, for possession by way of specific performance
of the agreement to sell dated 20.03.1978, with respect to 70 kanals and 4
marlas of land which is stated to be a total payment agreement. The First
Appellate Court has modified the decree for possession by way of specific
performance of the agreement to sell while ordering refund of the earnest
money along with interest @ 6% per annum.
3. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062008
4. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the
assertions made in paragraph 3 of the plaint have not been denied by the
defendant. Hence, there is no dispute with regard to identity of the property.
5. This court has considered the submissions and find no substance
in the present case for the following reasons:-
(1) Admittedly, the respondent is mother-in-law of the
appellant. She executed a Power of Attorney in favour of
Sh. Sangram Singh son of the appellant on 20.03.1978.
The alleged agreement to sell was also executed on the
same day.
(2) As per the agreement to sell, the defendant agreed to sell
three acres land which is located towards the side of the
village, whereas it was agreed that 1/3rd share of land
located across the river will be sold. The plaintiff has
failed to disclose the extent of the land belonging to the
respondent across the river. The suit was filed on
05.10.1989, whereas the agreement to sell was entered
into between the parties on 20.03.1978.
(3) As per the agreement to sell, the sale deed was to be
executed on sanctioning of mutation in favour of the
respondent. However, the appellant has failed to disclose
the date or the time line as to when the mutation was
sanctioned. This court has repeatedly asked the learned
counsel representing the appellant, however, he failed to
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062008
disclose the same.
(4) The period of nearly 46 years have elapsed from the date
of agreement to sell. In absence of perversity, this court
does not find it appropriate to interfere with the discretion
exercised by the first appellate court particularly in view
of the relationship between the parties and the agreement
to sell being vague.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground
to interfere is made out.
7. Dismissed.
8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
May 06, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
3 of 3
